82073 iF LEGALLOGIC. Copyright Pbilipsines 205 ——- FRANC}S JUDINS N. EVANGELISTA v nsiongsirre.aauvo AIL Rights Feserved [No pat of his Book may be reproced in any fashion without permision from the authors. In adr fo trace unauthorized Feproductiv the authors have inchidea insgsicat errors Ahroxghowt this material ISBN 978-971-0115900-4 Bus Published in 205, Conn ok Supply ‘a Peis Baling. Quszon Aver, Qaezen Cy bie tte FOREWORD 1 veould be tie 1 stese the Imputtonce of Jog in the stuuly and procice of law. ter atl, 98 Sie Ealwand Coe hoe verter, “roo i the eo ea.” W is quite sping then hat fesal reasoning has received scant attention tea our egal ‘scoters and scholar, ‘The tools of legal loge ate indispensable fo ta student fn analyzing eases and problems axl in presenting thelr arguments fn aking the bay, examines age exhort to eesent their answers in «logical maniser In the practi of lta the administration of juste, the avecate and the dge wil soon realize that the persuasive power of tual and appellate arguments and of judicial decisions ts socked lit logeal ‘organization, In fine, legal logic is etc to success in tow scot in the bar examination, an i fegal practice. ‘The nuthous deserve stong commendation for hei work whlch should be requind reacting for law students md professors a5 well as forthe members ofthe bench and the bar ‘Lega eduention should place more emphasis onthe acquisition of egal shi and competencies rather than onthe te ‘memorization and regurgitation of legal res. The pulicaion of this book isa salient stp in his disecton Ally. MANUELR, RIGUERA ‘Montz Legal Education BortMESSAGE “Those who sil ellove that any legal wasoning shoul be gud by the principles of lage wl beni eam his tok. Widh lear nguage, “the boule esses ond itastates through actual Supine Court decisions what rakes any easoningin law valli inv or fallacious, We teaches la} reasoning shill in a sf for better thon “hat of some a schol Prof. RENATO 8. MANALOTO Lawyer and Feat, Dyer Pioy Una Pippin «Dion MESSAGE Fray + textbook on lyl logic that 6 spetically “signe foe Flip law stems. Wiis dear and enganze Presentation ofthe ceneepts and principles of il tage and use ‘of examples involeng actual tel cases i he country this werk ‘wit surely euke the study of legal reasoning, mow engoging, Prucuctive, and enjoyable fr Filipino ta sents, [Congratulations to the authors ofthis estbowk, Deals Joli Evangsinta and At, David Robert Aquino, fa job well one! What hey ave accomplished isan ingptation to anyone thinking of making Phiippine education more elevant and reaningfl or Filipino students. Dr. NAPOLEON M. MAAQUIAO, Jk Atacl Preset Paogay Deta Soe Usiesiy “Mone‘TABLE OF CONTENTS: FOREWORD, Atty Meet R Riguera Member Le eat Bo MESSAGES: Prof. Reno B, Mavatoto Layers Ect prt of Psp tf he ips Di 1 Napoleon M. Mabeguio, Je “sce Des of Py Det Sole Ua = me INTRODUCTION Chapter o Intl gic and Law om sal Res n 0° Argusnen sen Expression of Roos Recognining Argunents Components of Legal Reasoning vali gal Resoving, Chspter 2 Paaett Co pisinLegl Reaming Burden of Pro tence Relevance and Admissibility Testy of nesses Expert Testimony Examination Depenatencr ot Patents Chapters Daductive Rosoning i ane Deduction end Induction Sytem Types of Syllosisms Categories Spogicas Es Pa 4 2% a 26Quant of the Proicate Paris ofa Categonica Syogisms ules for Vaiity of Cateyorieal Sylogims Hype tial sytagions Conditional Sogiems Rules for Conditional Syllogisms Enthymemes Palys tlogimns chapters patie sso ie axe Inductive Generations [evatuatiagIneitive Generalizations Analogical Arguments Evaluating Antec Anguments Chapters Fetes io Lge Reason Formal and Informal Falls 8 ra @ @ ” Equivoeaton Amphiboly Enproper Accent Vicious Abstaction ‘Composition Divison Fallacies of trstesance Argumeren af Howinen Arguimontuo a serio Arqurenton of Becsten ati Princ Fallacies ofnsulicient Evidence ‘Angiomentr a Artin Argumentun at Vercunian Actident Hesty Generatiction Argnmenton a Iemositons Fokee Dilemma 100 a2 108 m0 9 am us 0 2Chapter Rules of Lega Reseving 125 INTRODUCTION Rates of Catlision 1s JSR DUC CN a ulesof Intexpretation and Constzucion 153 Rules ot 15 The ent ues ech by le 1m tar Sage toe Rules of Proceare awe cst of of cuts stn of as hh lf ee the mt theta About the Authors Most erature on the suet of legal lege eons from forvign jurists, The concapts, prinipies and mone Jmportenlly the examples given are cult fen experiences from legasystemy that ane not our an 2k as this situation that prompted us 10 undertahe this ‘humble workin order ta present ts de student oF Legal Lepic a itlly Filipino view oF the subject, “This work lise the Famdamvenl pins ingore "soning highlighting te concepts soe pincptes a plas seg attempts to present the stadent the rch dynamic flied in raffing lopial argument as ell understanding ite favs and itsstena. apprecioting the at of Mone importantly, this work works ts way around Someste Lae and ihustrates is saient point through the veo ‘uF ove jurispnsenes. While 1 sll ake our beainge on thehallowed grounds of egal loge from Western thaw, the ppliction and presentation Filipino, “Though Yeyal logic i considered a8 2 minor sublet, we besiew that the concepts, principles sr! disciptine embox ed in this very dynaiie oem would greatly -tengthen and sist the Mugen of Jaw in aas of legs) writing, debt and ingumenttion a8 wl a6 fn the Interpretation are eonsirtion As this will sotinunnsty be stork in progrse, this work doesnot purport fy bean estive exposton om tho sul Tims bru rather am attempt to help the student fra wih the eonodpts and principies ot May the dt tight of oti, en Ve tight of ae nd ot Sp of Grace the Authors ‘Geni Chapter 4 Introduction ve sti = asi Lia elton = has not fied me to any specie sevice Among te abit of ads eich singin 9, bates ood Sb amd ns on the ly oe is et lino ie ai went Fis ms ns, sane pou fr im Bate the echt Pal cng ed thet saris of mceaton is. dierent bined of ovation ot tag cated elation cll Bat Bian sequela poe Toco Brak Theda Logie and Law Logie Is the study ofthe principles al methods of goed reasoning, It isa science of seasoning which aims to detemine and lay down the eniteria of goon (earrec) reasoning ad Bad (ncocrect) reaming. tn fine with this purpose, It probes into the fundamental concepts of argument, inference, truth, fabily and yay, among others. [tis om this very purpose of undertaking this study here is practical value les ts by means of loge that We elaify our aleas, assess the acceptability ofthe claims andbelies we encountes, defend and justify our assertions dad Statements snd mulke cational and sound decisions [Although psychology ls aso infested in and studies reasoning it is primarily concemed with how people reason Tihs demands lonking for patterns of behaviour, speech oF earoligica activity hat take place ithe process of reasoning, Trgies an he other hac studios the principles of good retain, Is task does not merely desceibe how people weason hut to discover and make availble those ctetia Wat cn be tose to est segments fr correctness! Logic being the sience of correct and sound seasoning i intiapensobte inthe ft of ae. The etficieney of practicing llopends on the quality of legal reasoning. Legat reasoning toh we use wher we apply laws, rules, and regulations 10 ppnticular facts and casei what we use when We Snenpeet Constitutions and statutes, when we balance fundamental Friniples and polices andl wien see evaluat evidences, and Jae judgments to onder egal decisions By examining at evaluating the elements and struchres ‘of legal reosoning, our legal judgments ard decisions vil shit fiom mse -abjecive preference to objective rationale Such kind bf judgenens ad decisions cin beter serve the nue ff. Givoo the prime impartance of logical reasoning in the tow proctice, fos ection should inclace the understanding tn analyse fundamental prineiples and methogoiesies of ol reaaoning that will able the aw students to discriminate Intec god std bad patterns of legal argumentation, For a profesion that sees co much on sound reasoning 1 valid argumentation in order to jostify & cain, defend = Proposition, assess the strength of evidences and render a “Ring Ge 6 Cor Catan rons Lope 183) a Judlicious detson, tigal logic should be pled atthe center of ‘ur legal cursiculun, ‘Legal Reasoning Argument a an Expression of Reasoning “Legal eessoning ike any in of ensoning, 3 exprestod Ahvough arguments, anal is with arguments that ogi hiely foncstned Ths, i important i ths imtwkactry chapter ta discuss the hundamental notion of argument, ts base elements fand strctates, and sshat makes it elstine fom her verbal ‘ltesances and expressions. When people hear the word “aignamnt” they wally Unk of sonne kind of quarrel or dispute. tn Lai, however, at argument aim pu forward and defend with teasors. To be mone precise, an aeguntent a yup of statement in shih fone satement i claims! to be true on the bass of another stotement/s. The statement that 6 being chimed to be te fella the conclusion and the statement that serves a the has ‘oF support ofthe conclusion i called the premise Thus, when & Inveyer attempts to prove, jostfy of defend a particular elim hy connecting #40 one of more claims, he/she is making an aguanent, rom the above explanation, we can sco how valuable sepuimente ane for layers, Lawyers become more persuasive ancl convincing if they develop the bab of speaking in Seguments, that is, they do not fst make assertions or claims thot something is rue (however confident and certain they an of the uth of ther assertions), but support thelr assertions by providing justifration, reasons or premises for thei aims However if is aot eneugh that Tawyers formate arguments fo persige people, fr not all argument ae coeect ind ceptable, In Leys, arguments are cetogorized as eitherIogleal_or logical, valid or invalid, sound or unsound depending on the acceptability of the premises and. the ‘connection betwen the pomise and the conclusion. To beable to constricl write and present acceptable and. convincing arguments, avers must be shied in termining he tical soundness of agumens, ‘This 6 of determining the logic of arguments demands tho aby to analyze the stricture and eantent of agaments = what are the jt and problems Reig ied what the chil him of the argument, what are the bases and premises advanced 10 suppor the claim, and what ane the eacial esucaptions impli in ones reasoning, Thus, is dardamendal that ane cam identify in portieaae apumtenative passage the two hasie elemoats in am argument ~ the concusinn and the premsce To helps da this ask there are words or phrases hat Iyplally serve to indicat the premise or the comeleston of at argument. The presence of any of them efter though sot esys. signals that what follows is the premise of the Conclusion, Some of the cosnmoa conclaion indicators aze thorefore, sa, thes, hancs, te. while the premise inictors We ‘fle une ate because sine, for, asmuch as, te ‘On fist reading a passage ite often useful to nding or Fighligh such indiator words shen we rin aeres them, especially if the passage i long and complex. Doing 50 ales us| to the crucial retionships of suppart within the paseage and thas gives us “landmarks” to its argumentative sree ‘he evince poset by the prosecution es sbtained dough wietanping. However, israel {for any pera, not being adrian by al the parties to fy pride commision, 1 Jap ay ite oF cable 0 sorely erin, infer or cant sch communication. There, suoh evince wll be asbesir hsprtair jici ivetigoto, Noting the wont “eee” inthe fit sentence helps us locate the argument’s conclusion, “Such evidence wil not be admissible sn this particular judicial investigation.” Wasa helps 1s recognize that the fist two claims (sentences) are offered as ‘easons ar premises in suppor ofthat eonelusion, Abortion should wt be eyaiced cen i ves of raje ond inst Beans ti not moray pore do ae innocent dfosless chit set someone el” sit In this passage, the wont “esse” intaduces the premise ‘that supports he anguer's postion sgainstegalzing abortion, Aveo of caution, however, ust beaded. Some of the arguments We wll encounter captain no indicators, Sometines| ‘we are just supposed to understand that an argument i being presente, ‘MOMs campaign got rf sido end fei the prolifera of hese sso errs sas dun: he movement ofebilesensing hey af Analyzing the content ofthis passage, we can sce thatthe speakel Js asserting the truth of the Sint siatement and supporting it with the second statement So, we have here an argument whore the fist statement is the conciion and the sscond siatement serves a its premise although we cannot see ‘ny premise or contusion indicators in the passage. Recognizing Argments As discussed! in an earlier paragraph, an argument isa group of statement, but not al groups of seatemrnts ae Brguments. An argurvontalwayshas.a conclusion and 2 premise ‘Without one, x busch of were: fs not at argument. I on this basis that we can recagnize whe there isan arguement and hen |‘Bere & none. However, people ofen mistake argumen’s from passoges that seem to be arguments but are not. Thus, itis Iexperative to be skilled i distinguishing angements from none srgument, (One passage that is often mistaken with anjuments is cexplonation, An explanaion is an illempt. to show why Sometie, the cise, whean argument isan attempt to shove that somthing isthe ease." AlRhough an aegoment end a fxplonation are hat important fs legal easoning, the twa have to be distinguished because unlike arguments, explanations are rot meant to proven sey the Wath ofa particular clam. ube We ed company tee seated by te Srpreme Court frome fhe court fod itereut Inconsisncss the etuenoes probes fy the ny is tapos people from exprssing thsi is nsonstiational emus on Constitato tes he fram of speech. ‘On the surface, these ro passages look very much alike. Both give reasons, and hoth ise the indicator word because. However there san impartantdiference betice the tuo. The fist sentence is an explanation and the second sentence i. art agument ‘An explanation tis to show why something ls the cae. nour ist example, for instance, tis Lear that the speaker isnot ‘tying to prove the truth of the statemeat Hubert Webb end company were acquited by the Supreme Couvt 3 act that {snot contestable nor is a subject af controversy: Instead, the speaker is tying to explain why they were acquitted (or hone come they were acquitted), Of course, you can angus about + lun Gite al hil Tk: & Sets mdcten 0 ‘hater a given explanation i corrector not ut hat posticuar passage remtine a mere explaniaton which not meant © prove sy clan ‘ithough both arguments and explanations give reasons, the nature of these reasons cffers, In explanations, these asm fare stl the ates of factors that show how or why 8 thing fstne fo exist In arguments, they ane intended to. provide rounds to justify a aie, to show that i plausible or teu Thus, in the other enanspte shave about the lw prohibiting people from expressing their vias, the speaker 8 making at fngument because the second statement $6 intended € jastiy ‘why su aw is unconstetonal Typically, explanations ar given by cling causes of the cevent tobe explained. For example, the pidge porponed the bearing bestse the efersant fail to appear inthe court de to unstable health conditions ‘This a causa explanation the ane fo appear brought bout the postponement ofthe hearing ‘There np attempt £0 prove thal the judge indeed postponed the hearing, Such esumed asa fact, The later part of the passage offers Information that woud show how the fet came tbe Thus, to distingwth arguments from explanations, we reel ko asc a key question: fet the speaker’ intent to prove or {stoblish shat something fs the case ~ tht to provide reasons bor evidence for accepting a claim as rue ori Fis/he tet 4 cexplain shy something Is the ease that so offer an socount of ‘why sone event has occurred or why’ something isthe way itis? Teshe formes then the passage isan azgoment. Ifthe lates, then the passages an explanation Arguments should also be istinguished from unsupported opinions. Statements of belief oc opinion ae sfatemenis aut what a speaker of writer hagas to believeSuch statements can be true or false, sional of irational, but hwy are parts of arguments only if the speaker or writer claims that they follow fom, or support, ther claims. Here is an example of eres of unsupported belt or opinion Tage oth tie proposed Junie Jutior and Wile Act being discusad at present én 9 biome cofeonc cama oft Cogs, Republic et $348 ust anil, Te man age af vial abity mus owed rae 5 012 ‘This carat be considered an argument berause acy there sno premise for reason) given why fhe minionum age of Admissibility and Relevance Evidence is deemed adissibe its rlevant to the issue and mone impotent its not excluded by provision of law ot by tho Hoes of Court. Asta eelovance, such evidence must have seh @ zelation to the fat in tue 98 t0 induce Delite existence or nomesistence, Tvidence to. be belloved must prosred nat only fom the moult of» credible witness but mst "pon. Caan 662 SORA 61 OH} ockwe Goeras tos SRA 2042, Gen! Cu, SR 205 0] bbe credit in tet as tole the test of conformity with the “knowledge and common experience of mankind.®) ‘Testimony of Witnesses ‘Testimony is generally confined te personal knowledge; and throfore eludes hearsay: Ths, a witness ean Westy only ti those tats which e knows of is personal knowledge whit are derived fom his own perception, except as otherwise [provided under the asf Ctr Section 36, Rile 130 of the Reeised Rules om Evidence, states that 2 witness can testify only to ohose facts which he knows nf oF comes font his personal rowed that, whic fate derived from is pescoption. A witness, therefore, may not testi a to what he metely fed frm mers either Because the 895 told, or he read or heard the same. Such testimony is ‘considered hearsay and may nat be ceived as proof of he tah ‘of chat heh learned, This i knose a the bearsay rae. The law, however, provides for speci exceptions to the hearsay rule. One ofthe exceptions i the entries in offi records mace fn the performance of day by x public officer. In oder words ‘official erties ae clmssble in evidence regardless ol whether theotiear person who made them sas presented and tsi jincaur since these enites are considered prima facie evidence ‘ef the facts etal therein, Other mseugnized seasons for this fexception awe mecesily and tnistworthiness. The neces consists in the Sneonvenience an! slificully of reqiting the blfsia's stendanes so 9 witness fo festiy t ittumerable tiaesactons In the course of hie duty. This wail aso unduly hamper putlie business, The tstworthiness consists da the presamplion of ragularay of performance of official dy by & public foes > oe vi be Game, BS SCRA BOI Peo Ost, SORASHE otExpert Testimony [Bepert testimony refors to statements made by individuals ‘who are considered as experts in @ patiular fed. Note that under the Rules of Court, the opinion of a svitmess om a matter ‘equiting special knowledge, sil, experience oF tining which Ihe is shown to possess, maybe rwouived iq. evidence? Moreover under Uhe same Rulz,a published teats, pesca for pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science or att 8 Mime as tending to prove the truth of 3 matter stat theron fhe court aks judicial notice, of witness expe in the subject testifies, thatthe weiter ofthe statement inthe treatise poviodical or parnphlt is recognized is hie protest or esling ss expert inthe subject>" The mose common situation where export testinony s sort to by the courts hen 3 holographic sell sconteste Examination Pans nie that under the Ride of Cou the order in which a individual witness may be examine is as follows: 4) Direct examination by the roponent-sfers tothe xamination-ihict of a witness bY the perty presenting him on the fats relevant tothe su; b)Ciossexuminatin ty te opponent ~ Upon the termination of the diteet examination, the witness may be cxossaxamined by the adverse party as 40 any matters stated i u the. direct examination, or connected ‘herewith, with sufcent flinass and Irecdom to test his accuracy. and twuthfulness and feedorn from interest ot bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all Important facts beaving upon the ie? ) Recdiet examinaton by the proponent = Aer the ‘sionrexamiation of the witness has been feneluded, he aay be reexamined by the party calling him, to explain or supplement Fis anowers. given during the cross camination, On. sedinect examination ‘quetions cm attrs not ea ith ding th erossexamination, may be allowed by he court nie dscetions and d\Roroscexamition by He eppoueet - Upon the ‘contusion of the mies examination, the adverse panty may ro-cicesesamine the witness ov matters stated in his eecleet amination, and ako on such other tatters as may be allowed! by dhe court in Ste discretion.” ote, howsever tit ater the examination of a sstness by both sides has been conctuded, the witness cannot be realled ‘without leave ofthe court. The cout ll gant or withhold leave Inits discretion, asthe interests of justice may reqited.® ule, Sete Rs of Caen lp, Sate, uso GeaMoreover a witnais may be impeached by the party against whom he was called, by eoniradiciory evidence, by evidence that his general reputation fo uth, honesty or intogety is bad, for by evidence that he hae made at other Himes statements inconsistent with his present testimony, but not by evidence of particular wongfit acts, except that Ht may be shown by the ‘Somination ofthe witness or the tecord ofthe jadgiment that Ine has been convicted of an afense.” Before a witness canbe impeached by evidence that hea rade a other times statements inconsistent with hs present testimony, Uns slatements enust Be related to him. with the ssresmstancss of the tims and places and the persons presont, fy he must be asked whether he mada sch statements, and it {fy alloned to explain them I the statements be in wenn they imust be shovwa to the witness fore any question is pt to in oncerning ean Dependence on Precedents Store daemon quiets mover" This Is the bedrock of what we nose refer tas precedents. Irie general we that, when a polit has boon sete by a cision, it becomes a precedent tehich should be flloveed in subsequent secs before he same court The rue Ls based wholly fox policy, inthe iteret of uniformity are certainty of the la bot is Heguently deperted from. The decteine of adherence to precedents or sine dace was applied by the English courts and ‘wax later adopted by the United States In our very own) ‘pale 152 Sein 19, Rus Ga “amas rsdn, etna et, a, onpeds Law Dior 822) > rng. Vee Ting 552 SCRA GH 000) I i | | i | i } | i I Jsiction, the Civil Code echoes thisby declaring that jut Aecsons applying or interpreting the leas or the Constitution shal form prt ofthe aga gate of he Pipi © ‘The doctine of sine des at mon guia nose ie embodied in Asie 8 of the Chil Cle of he Pilippines.” "This the doctrine that, who a court has once Lid dow 4 prone, and apply t9 substantially the same, eegandles of whether the parties and Propet: ate the same. Follow past precedents and do not list what has Been setted, Matters steady decided om the Inert cannot br subject of Higation again. But ate that this rile oes not be ind adhesencr to precedents * fatuse cass, wore fats ane Tis based on the principle that once a question of fae ae been examined and decides, it shoul be deemed setled and slosed fo farther argument. Only upon shovsing. thal Srcumtances attendant in 9 parScular case override the great Denes derived by out uci sya from the doctrine of st acs, am the course juste in cating ase the sme. ‘The following cate ea cea istration of tar des: PESCA vs, PESCA* Petkioner Loma Pes and respondent Zosimo Pes were o marsed couple, Intl, the tart Davin, 98 SCRAZE5 (2006) creas, Sorta et Lato, 70 Pm 28 Femi Peg, £59 SOR 1322008 “Urnines. Done 888 S698 285009,om Ey young couple did not ive together a8 petitioner wat sulla student in college and respondent, a seaman, tad to leave the county on tourd an ocear-going vessel barely a month afer themarsiage Alter establishing duit residence the couple could nly stay together for 2 months in a year = ‘when respondent wa> on vacation. But despite this they bogota ben ewas only in 1985, chen petitioner besa to rotice that respondent showed gas of ‘pyeblgiaa dregciy” tw pectoren is manta He was emotionally immatene, an ieesponible shan, erveh and vient an ae also a habitual drinkes. Petitioner and thes children ‘so alo treated with physical violne Loan fllod petition to the Regional Test ‘Court fr the decoration of nullity ofthis mareage Jneakang psychologiealinenpacity, (On November 15,1995, the RTC declare the marrige mull and void ob int. This decision, Ihoweaver was reversed by the Court af Appeals ot the basis that Loma faled 40 show proof that Zosimo was indeed swkering trom payehol al ineaocty dat woul case hin to be incognitn of the Bese maria covenant, Appellant Sled» potion for review with the Supreme Court contending that the doctrine bid Dut by Somios 2 CA ard Rei the Palippnes CA and Motind® should have no retroactive application and om the assumption thatthe Mona "ulng could be applied tetroacvely, te guidelines therein outlined should be taken to be merely advisory and not mandatory in nature. ‘Tho appellant fiber contends that the pplication of the States and Molin dca should swarzant any remand ofthe ease tthe tal core {or further proceedings and not is diss Dis ie CA cri he doce Wid out Sr CA Maina? etch ppt to 2 CA wad Republic The High Coast found no amet inthe pation, The “astrine of sae esis,” one in Aatile 8 oF the Civil Coe, expresses that fill fecisions applying. ot ineypesing the law shall form partet the legasystem ofthe Phiippines The rule follows the settled legal masien ~ tosis ierprtats legis im atinet” = thatthe interpretaion plaoed pon the writen law by a ‘ommpetint court has the force of ls “The interpretation of construction ples by the courts establishes the coniemporancous legislative tent of the. ‘The latier as se interpreted and construed would thus constitute a part of that Jaw as ofthe date the saute i enacted fe is only oer & prior evling of this Court finds sel ate ovenrued andl a different view 3Adopted, that the new doctrine may have t2 be applied prospectively i favor of pasties who have felled on the old doctrine and have acted in good Iaith in secordance thetewkh under the friar rule of lex prop on exp.” To reiterate + buen of proot i the duly of the panty alleging to prove hs claim, Evidence, on the other hand, i the romp sanctioned under the Helos of Cour! foxes prove oe establish a fact ina judicial proceeding. In order for such evidence fo be apprvcisted by the Court and admited by the {Couette elvan aed mates tthe ete at hand evidence may either he throws tesinany of witness or though the presentation of an object or document, As far as presentation of witnesses ate concerned, dhe Rules seguir that thoy and their testimonies undengo several examinations = inst, cous, e-iect and e-ross examinations - with een i ‘iow ascertaining truths al vers We ako have what we call precedents whids reer 10 issues that have been laid to rest by previous judicial decisions. This ensures not ony the stability ofthe judicial process but alo strengthens our justice system allowing fr conti. Chapters Deductive Reasoning in Law 1 het too 0 fanatic eye te aah of fru, ess Chit andy ce ho ha tp iit a the ont of epi avec Ti stories with Satan on apse the Tepe wont one He dno! hin, al everyting ae ppv ater cost Ba hae coe the dag = Heoeock is Deduction ané Induction Logiclans usually distinguish deductive from inductive esennns, Both ofthese forms of reasoning play moran roles fn one logal system. When appellate courts, fa instance, would dletemine nbethor the corect roles of law were applied to the blves fies of whether the rus of evidence were propery spplicd im esting the facts, they employ deductive asoring iv esses when 36 wnt to dotermine the fat of the 6 aro establish them throu causal arguments, probability or scientific methods, the reasoning chiefly relied upon is Snductve, How an these wo patterns of weatoning. diferent? Athoogh alt essoning or anguients attempt peavie suport Sat evidence ue teasons ~ for thei conclusions, they ditter| esl fa the anwunt of support they intend to provide. Some egasents to pove the rath of hei conelusions be yen aydoubt. Othors merely ry to show that their conclusions are plausible or likely or probable ta be true given the premises). “The fst kind of aggument is a deductive arguinent and the second kind isan incuctive argument. Jn ther words, we ate reasoning deductively when our premises intend to guarantee the truth of our conclusion wile we reason inductively when fu premiss are intended to provide good (ht not conclusive) evidence for the rh afar conctusion Here ar some examples of dedictinesensoning: Alt isdemsonos ae ci Driving under the saturn of feel is @ misono Monay,dicrng und he iofaoe oF ale is rina ao guts ssrtehes hss te quart i honor lard tha gs. Notice how the conclusions of these arguments ate sstablshed by the premises with absolute ceriinty, Each ‘onctusion fows from its promises with logical necessity ths ‘means that given the premises, the conclusion could not possibly be ake There ane owes when we make an argument the conclusion of which 1 not certin, ‘This ino! necessity 3 weakness for in many casas the mos that ein expect af | fasgument i to suppeet is conclusion with a egw of probability, fnductive arguments simply claim that thelr Conclusions ae ily or probable given the premises oer. “oven Esha, ott, Cl Tonk A Sets macaw 2 | b Consider this example [Noa student te Legal Logic class, bas goo study bis and 8 aloys ote os dscusins; He is eonsitent dans ter and has never foe ry sujet he as tk Ui ‘choo ont fn i ery poe tat Nit il no his ape agi cs “This is an inductive angument, Although i 9 stong angument, i does not provide an ebsoate guorantee that Net Will not fail in his Logst Logie class. Thete is sil a emote possi Hat he ail alin the sabe if the premises a re ‘hen the conclusion ill very ely probably, be tue: but the truth of the premises catot absolutely eute out the possibility thatthe canchision wil be falas, In other words, the contusion ‘ight tuen out lobe false even though the prvtises a na. ‘The folloseng, are some other examples of snducive arguments: ‘The car cat str exe ug here plenty of gale the en: ae ‘Gs ty thot he tery i ales exiuste, nt at fie yes the pas rate the ba sass se th 255s ad So we con say that fas year’s sucesfl br ‘eopins ant proably wot gy Eeyond 2h. Te Js sometimes sald thot the Basic diforence between deduction and induction is that deduction moves from general penis to particular conclusions, wherens iesiation moves afromm particular premises to general canetusions, Although this is generally the case, it is wrong to use this as a basls of clstnguishing deduction from induction since there are Seductive arguments that move from particular to genesal and fduetive arguments that move frm general to particlar© Consider those two exams These pie wars Fiveisa rine mmber, Sooo empress and ‘hav. at nantes ten ta at ight ‘regime mar. AIS of LK. Reng’ revons oaks hao bon ests getlpemie an There, Her mex? hoot all prey be Iter (urtica eancsion) ‘The Sst a deduetive argument but the resoning moves foes poticaloe premises to 2 general conclusion, wile the second i a inductive argument but ws reasoning ows from tpneral ta pasticulst, Thus, wt males an argument edie Drinduetve snot the pattern ot particlaity or generality inthe premises and conclision, Rathes it fs te type of support the ptemtces ae aimed to provide for the conelsion. ‘o deterine whether an argument is daductive or inductive, we can ely om indieator words that spl the nd oF ‘lain the argarent mkes, For example, a phrase such ns “it necessarily lollmws that” almost always indicates that an argument is deductive. Hore ate some common deductive indestor words evenly ie dein ooh tae enitly ths togicly haps at ‘hang M. Co Ca Coben nvedsono Loge 103) Ey Booty Beets at fovcisely mit bt costa “These ate some common indctve insientor words roby one woudespcs ta tiely It pub to supose it ‘hanes are iC tosmae foes hat ‘When no indicator words ate presen ts help ws decile whether an argument is deductive or inductive, ee pst ave to base our ucdgment on the content ofthe premises and caelason ff the argument isthe conclusion intended to ollow wh tit hcessity from the prentisos off fF intended simpy follow fromthe premises wittea degree of geobabilts? In this chapter, 6 will concentrate on deductive arguments and discuss ndutive arguments nthe next chapter Syllosisms In opie, deductive arguments are offer expres in what swe call “aylogome" A syllogism i throeline argument — that 45, an aryuent that conscts of exactly two premkes and a conclusion, This fori of reasening 6 what I ching below the sutfoce of mot judicial opinions anv briefs: Gottned Links expressel te significance of the sylogints the hundred years fag eallag it savention “oe ofthe mst bewail nd one of he rast fnyortens, onde By the art mind The value of Ssllogisms, particulary im legal rosoning, eas also eeagniced boy the eighteewth century reformer Cesare Deceari who fespnesy advossted tht, in the area of criminal lave, judges ult follow splepistic le of argu "ie ery cri ss pu shoul ee £8 pret slg he magn premise Should Le Nam Ese Come Horan Us Carfhe generat sth mina promi, he act, mio dos or doesnot cor ke na he eoeclason equi ar condemnation. But for all ts power the principle of the sylogisn is suprisingly straghtforvard: What iste ofthe universal is true of tke partloulae If we kno tat al torts ace evil wrongs and ‘defamation i a tort thetefore defamation isa civil wrong. Is ho exaggeration ta say that the slog ies a the hose of legal ‘iting, Consider these fllowing examples The Constitution pris woe-Flpines to sce tls of th pic dos Signing this del of sb wil enale Mr acoon, fn lieriny, to opie d te of ts. fo of te pic donno Thenfire, signing this ast of sale ie Sadish poner includes the power 46 deternie ‘ote 7 no here as bee grave abst 9 diserei oe par of any breach or fnstramentalty of the Goverment The Suprome Coa: granted ui power, and Therefore, the Supreme Court has the power to Ulcrmine ety oF not Dre bas ben & rece abuse of scction om the par of ny Branch or instrumentality of the Goverment ‘The President oa grant omesty fo the miitary utente is m concurtence of & raiorty of all the members of the Congiess "Can Bese, On Crs ra Parihnat fre Onis ou, 1865) 6 Less tha lf ofthe msnbers ofthe Congres isn ifroor of granting anes the mary matinee and ‘Thonfr, the President cannot grant te sid ‘nosy 1 important that lave stadents develop the habit of thinking in sylagiains, When briefing a case assigned i thee diss, the skeleton othe deductive sslagiun must poke through i their deserpton of the cass rstanale Laveyers, whenever possible, must make the ayguments in thelr briefs and memo« in| the form of sylogisms, A clear, well-constucted syllogism fears each conclusion i well-supported with evidence, and iives the josge 9 recognizable hash ¥o evaluate che stength of the argument Being able to construct slogisms i one sil, being able to form good syllogism is another shill Not al slgisms ate logical. Deductive arguments may either be vad er anvabd ‘What do we mean by valid and java arguments? ‘We have seen that all deduetive arguments lain, implicitly or explicitly, tht thelr conclusions follow necessary from thle premises. However, some dedustive arguments have sonciusions which de nofollow nacessoily fom thei promis ‘These arguments ste invalkd deductive argoments. A val deductive argument 6 an aeguinent in ovbich the conchasion really does follow neerssiily rom the prvages. Put anther sway, a lid argument isan aygmont in which: if the promises fre tue, then the conclusion mart be cue or dhe erat of the ‘promises guarantoe the truth oft conclusion. “These are examples of valid arguments: Instore arent Ruble ae sts ‘Their, rulers ar tt ele conductsAll wars fhe nit more ae then goed are aij, All acta eer nlc re a Shon goo. “Terre, ll cle wars ave ust. Mammals eg Fish ane manna ‘Then. ee Bs, Below are examples of ial arguments: A Proisweri ina fine Anna coroittad eine onc: aud Teves. Amoi commited frowd f.—All fies oe eriina fens, ant foes pnistable by Thee, ll crinin ofeee pile soto fo Chinese ve Asiens ‘Avericans are ot Chinese “Therfre. Amerisns re not Aston As the &xamples above show the valcity (or invalidity) of arguments does not depend on the truth of the peemises or the ‘conclusion, Angument c has obviously false premises and fale onelsson but i valid, Te should be emphasized, however, tot no valid argument can have all ue promices and fale fonclasion. This important rath follows tr the very Aefintion of a valid argument Since a valid argument, by efitin, isan argument in which te conclusion seat be tre it the geomses are true, no valid argument can have all true primis and fase concusion, Looking at the examples of invalid arguments, we can notice that invalid arguments may have trae premises and ie conclusion 8 can be seen in argument f Again these examples shove that what determines the validity (or invalidity) of the Argument not the truth (r falsity) of ts promises ot conclusion but the relationship betes its promises and cones ~ that 4s whether the corsion ello necessity fom the premises (Gepot noah way, whether the premises guaran the trath of the conclusion) ‘Ths, the baste questlon in determining the vaiity of ar arguments aot I the premise tre? Oris the conchsion true? The basic question is Dats the conclusion follow necessarily fromthe promises? (Or da the premises grantee the Guth of the conelusion?) Ifthe ansveer sys, tha the arguments vai Whe answer ino, than the argument is inva shold be noted that the forms “palit” or “inetd” do sat apply 4 inductive segusments since inductive arguments, 5 the frst place, do not cain thot their conclusion follows fom the premises sith trict necosty for that matte, all inductive snguements are tekeally Invalid). Other terms of appraisal are lus for inductive argument such as "stong" and “eat” This ‘wil be discussed in the next chapeee is: how do we determine whether an argument is va for invalid (hat is, whether its conclusion necesasly Follows from ts premsses? “Types of Syllogisns “Ta adres tie question, we noel to fist undlestand the types of deductive arguments. Sllogms are of to types fMigorical and hypothetical | A cwtegorical sllogicm Is a syllogism composed of cloporial statements alone while a Hypothotealslloginn includes bosh categorical and faypothetelstsements »Acatogorcal statement isa statement that directly assets something or states 2 fact without any canlitions. ls subject Is simply affirmedt or denied by the predicate, The following ame ‘samples of categorical statment: Sonata tod pico ‘The Pllipines not a commune sta Some crimes aeons aia seni Tre Supreme Cont dnd he practice oan. Some oes te no puto A hypothetical statment i a compound statement which ‘contains 2 proposed or tentative explanation, A compound ists of at Teast tivo clauses connected by fnjuinetions, adverts, etc, which express the relationship between the elivaes as well a¢ at assont toi The asses are simple lates or statements that contain one subject and ene predicate. The following ave examples of hypothetical fe countrys serous danger da oan ‘or rbulin, the President cam declare ‘Marti Ls a parly to 0 court fits to performs sis Ions ft conta thee tee & loach sft ‘The bench of contract ie either actual or nipetory Given the explanations of what categorical and Inypothetcal satemcnis are, we can nov understand beter categorical and hypothtical sjlogisms. The following is a City councilors ne elected public ofits Jevomy snot an elt public of ‘Thre, Jerry i a a ty counor Notice that every stakiment in the above syllogism is a categorical statement. Hypothetical sllogtams, however, fcaatain a hypothetical statement usually located in Hts fis premise, The example blow e «hypothetical sllogione foo statement = not iene ta device ist anyon, tle sfetement te ot fiandalenn Mrs, Lin ad no intention of dee saporior Pirsors Abr Lines statement th fie, Tot ol feel ing ter ‘We will fist deal with categorical yllgisms and den ‘wih hypothetical yogis. Categorical Sytlogiems Props of Categorie! Statement We can beter understand categoria syllogism and thee valicity if we understand well the mature of estegorcal Satemcats. Every categorial statement has quality and ‘quant ats properties. Quality: the quality ofthe statement may be affomstive or negative, Astatement that has the fers "a," nh “none” nd “acer” 8 negative. In the absence of such qualities, the statement emative Here are sume examples af airative stateraents Sine rin oe puso by permet The aces dvi th args ast RnHere are some examples of negative statements: Noone move te ees Theacusa wot gully of he cre, Query: the quantity of a statement i edhe Uunivesal or paticulas The statement js univers? whe iat i being aftrmed! or denied of the subject tera Ite whole extension; the statement ts porter when what ie boing aftitmod a denied of the subject is just a pat of cetension. Usually there ae qeantifiers that help determine the quantity ofthe steement, For universal staemunts we svi hove enh or particular statements ve have some almost mast otal sera many feo ‘The following are examples of universal statements All sectoral canoes mast bet leas 85 yrs af agen te day teat, Alli hues oe lds of batho’ degre No stettes thet ane ie congict it the Consttatin ari, The following are examples of particular setements Some acts of ignton oe justia 2 ot al senatorial candi re iil to re Sone criinatofrees ae enous ris. ‘Quantity ofthe Predicate “The proscate term has it oven quantity, vehich # not ‘ontical to nor dependent on the quanly of the subject ten, Jn determining the quantity ofthe predicates slo must be observed Predicate of an atfiemative statement is generally pantculs, However, in statements where the subject and the predicate are identical, the predicates universal. The predicate ofa negative statements always univer Tr the flowing statements, the predates ave pattculn Tho hippos ssa deri cote Some senators an eppostinists Inthe following statements, the predicates are rivers Manny ir did ot son He 2000 preset eta, Some sot ate na ewer A iaotir ie 0 fonole pont (Along this ‘Satonont & afinactio, the sdject and the protste ar etc) Parts of Categories! Syllopism ‘As mentioned vorliey, a categorical yllogian is aductive arguement consisting of the categorical sa that together contin exci dhe tems eae hi occu in excell b90 lagents. There ar thee Ks oF eros in a esogorical slag‘Minar fer (S)~ the sabe of the consis also called the sot erm) Major term (P) ~ the priate ofthe concuson (at ale the predict erm) Mite te 4 ~ the te ond in oth preter a erst mediate btn hein an hej ters ‘These are three Kinds of statements in a categorie syllogism Mino premiie — fhe promise whic contains the nor promise ~ the previse oh comin the Covctuion~ the statement he premises support Hore ae two examples that llustate the diferent terms nd statements i a etegorical login MooP Al ots ae cot wrongs. (jor premise) 5 Mt eligence afr. esinr promise) s » ‘Therefore, negligence isa col wrong consion) P M All cantacts 2th vogue ers ae ei. major eis) s M This contract ns oi. rin preied s P Tharfre, his contret does nat comin vague terms Tevncleson) Note that both syllogism above’ ave alld syllogioms. “They wl serve as examples of valid caegorcal slic for the next section which gives ws the rules in determining lohether the eateorial sls are valid inal Roses fr the Validity of Categorical Sylloginss oe: The login ast ont fs iv poms No soa county scat The Piipines i ot sas Thengore bisa coptobst country. [No miliary action whose hora effets eamnot be conto is monly pris, All mary 138s of bloga waxpons ae ary actions howe harp acts tb conta. Thenfore, no mitary uses of Wologia!weapone are orally permis isi fens ae na criminal fess. ‘Slander ' ot criminal fens: ‘Thefore sander is el fens ‘Ane the thie syllogisne valid? The only waists is the second. The other tho sols the frst re and, as, axe invalid He cam be olvervd that oth ofthe promises in eo syllogism are negative statements. Tho rationale bin this re 1s thal when the puoi ate both negative, the middle termfails to serve its function of mediating between the niajor nd minor terms. The violation of thie ule is calla the fallacy of ‘exclusive premise. ‘hus we can say that even If in the Sits, Doth of the premises aye tre it does not fllor thatthe Philippines is a capitalist country, It may have 2 mised econom Inthe sane way, the le of reasoning in the thd ier fs omg becouse ‘even if is true thot Clo offenses are nt tena odes, avd let us aay Almeygiving is not a erminal offs, we-cannot conclude that Almegiting & ace otenee, fy 2: Thi mas be the ps of wrote ‘The terms in the syllogism must have esacly the Some meaning aru! must be used in exactly the same way in etch ‘ecurtence. ter tae has diferent meanings ints aeurrences ian equivocal team. univocal term has the same mating in lifer occurmnees. la ous tew examples of valid syllogism, each pal of terms has the same mang, Examine the following axamples What i narra good ‘Tomato mistake eur ‘Thurefore, to mak tke good ‘he Congr can crestor ali cs Thelewof supe at demand as. ‘Therfore, the Congress cat abt the lw of sippy and dimen Sting cigates ta yerson bas 18 yrs of age ‘sunlit That are sid clowetts to 8 student elo 18 ves Thee, the ore asad he es, 6 Which syllogsms above ate invalid? The frst and the second. Inthe fst argument, the xm "ature used with 0 different mestings: as something pure (nat arfcial) and as something normal of usta. fs the snd example, the term au has two diffrent waages inthe int and second promises In the that yogi, ech of the teens fs en vse the same sense, Whats meant by “blow 18 yrs of age” the fst premiee ie he same ain the socom promis ‘The violation of the secand rule is called the fallacy of ‘equivecston. Equiveeation usualy occurs n the mic ter, te 3: The mie term mst Benner a est oe Most mayors tae pote pote Mr Heres is or Three Mi. Hors ha pla panty Lie i firs of foation Reyes witre accusation a form of efaation. ‘Therefore, Reyes wnraeacusain isa ie, No ary actions iat intentionally Aa Saver tins aes. Some Mateyian military actions “in. Sebok sndoainaly hill inwcet citi, Thengore, sone Malaysian itary ations mere ot ja whic terrae sre ptical bot premises. The it frst fom (8 “mor” and In he secant The swason fot this rule is thot when losis here ate vali? The is two examples dey both vitlate Rie 3. Notice that their middle rn the of ertion™ middle term 38pstcular in oth promises t might stand for a diferent postion ‘ofits extension in each occurtence and, thus, be equivalent to two terms, and, therefore alto fulfills fancton of uniting or Separating the minor andl major terms, Such violation is called the allay of particular middle, Notice that fy the third syllogism which is a valid syllogism the mite term (vsttanyarhons the indetionly stestions"s univers in tho fst premise, alehough poeticlar in the second promise, Ta determine the miele term nivel fo poticlay refer to the discussion on the quantity of the statement and prodieste, However there is an exception 4 this ral Even if the idle terns particular in both premises, but His quanti by ‘nos” in both premisos and the eamcksion is quantiied ty ‘one dhe syllogism does not woke this thi rule This ss ‘nce the combined extension ofthe middie term anor than universal Far example Most aor ho politi partes Mis gore ane corr Thenfore, samc people ano aoe politic! ports recor Rule Ifthe tr te contusion swiss the sme term ‘ne pence mast also be zeal, Examine te following anger Ayers ed he Pippin Daly Fauve. ‘Al ger a ert, Theron, all who read he Philippine Daily Tague ar iterate, AIS acts Shot inflict more harms tha goad are just A Eigao A Raj, age Enid andor Ra 198). Alt terre te inflict nar hae an god “Therefore lero act ae us Felons are criminal fense. _Miodemeanrs arent fone. ‘Darfore isceeaars a rot rial oss, aly the second aygumnt above fe valid. In the fest sll, the minot ter "those wha read he Philippine Daily Inguiter” Je universal im the consiusion hut particular in the promise, Such violation fclled de fllcy of ict mines In the tied exampe, the major tem “criminal offenses" is uenivesat inthe comets bt partewar in the premise. Such 3 ‘lation is ealled the fallacy of lick majo. “Tho rationale behind Ais rule i that in a deductive fangument the contusion should aot go beyond what the [premises state, Ths, the conclusion most not be wider in| ‘eters than the premises Again, to detornine ifthe major term oF minor term is universal for particular, efer to the discussion on the gsanticy of the satsnent art prea, Hypothetical Sylopisns A hiypotheti! spllgism is 3 sllogism that contains a hypothetical stoment an one of premises. "Hypothotc syllgicms are of the kinds conditions losin ‘ejnctive soto cjnciesltasn Since in legal easoningy we often encownter contional arguments, we wil foes on conditional singin,Conditional Syllogisms The conditional syllogism is a sjllogism in which the aor premis isa conditional statement A conditional statement is a compound statement which assets that one member (the then elas) is tre on condition thot the ober member (Qe i elas) fs tue, For example, ft tins then the ground wil be wet. The if use or itveqtalent ‘called the antscecent. while he then classe orisequvalent it called the consequent What is important in thé conditional statement i the sequence between the antecedent anid the camsequent that the tna oF the conseqeent follows upon the faliliment of the ‘condition stated in the antecedent. It es not mater whether individually the antecedent or conssquet is ta ols; what matters isthe relationship betseen ther The statement ~ the Philippines is in Asia, then Melebors Aquino is a Filipina does not make sense although ach clause, ten singly ste, The Philippines i indeed in Asia and Melchora Aquino is'a Eiipina. Vet the feet that Melchore Again is a Filipina is not a casseqaent of the Plippines being in Asia. On the other hand, the statement ff Melchora Aquino is not an Asian, dhen she isnot Filipino is a nue steterment although the lauses, taken sil, are false. The Slatement is tue because being an Asian s essential to bing & Pipine Conditiona) statements can be expressed not only in if then clauses but alboin a wide variety of diferent sentences Por vane eng tnnnger he dye mans that yo hae to face @ tromendous amount of per presi ‘The fut tat se is «naive of ol pis that ‘sho oso te cheno le a Anyone whe doers fir Ginatra must be @ Mark ‘Capo t nds you wre bora By ster a piri oi not ner the Kian of He When hose ns pour fv Sams, Espana ‘Aur case one of grote changes his mind, ‘ow a get Hess. se write these statements in the then forms, we cat see that theie meting runsins the same, you ave a toeaer ese days, then you must fice teers moun of por pres, sh swat of Bol then she Kno hare ‘the chocolat ills ave I he ches for nebo hen he must Be @ Mark Caguia f you are ot hon aga by wate aw pit thn ou carotene the Kingvom of Hee 1 Reroy ts your i Sampo, thee Espana ‘Ave. is lodeHone ofthe grants changes Wiser mind, then ‘ou wl ge he cap. “The minor premise affirms the consequent. THis invalid form scale the fallacy offing the consent ‘The conditional sillgim can be symbolized by the rnecrene fotlowing 1 ans, tho the growed be wet, ADE he growed swe, c A= forthe antecedent Thar, drained A = forthe eoncequent = = for the negation ofthe stnkment = toe “imphes = for therefore” ramine the following conltonaleyllogians. Which of hese ae valle which teal? be fod the pn, thor fe stole snr reso belting bn Aevording to the meio tge! examination, tar ns race of supose resi ay pare of his dy ol ating ‘Thane, eid nt ie the gun Rules fur Conditional Slogisms There re to valid forms oF conditional slog. ‘When the minor premise affirms the antscedent, dhe conclusion rons afr theconssquent This form scl aos poms i ins, thn te god beet A sia, 4 Thenfne, He ground i wet c c 1 you ove tie to vote, Hen you mast be 18 wars re, My cous icaboe Lys of eg ‘Therefore, my cousin geo, When the mior premise denies the consequent, the condluson wnust deny the anlcident, This form i called fe afudant bs mo Arawak his rods tien, stctomeon sve, he cast be gut of Fre The denon os tht esteem i untae Therefore, he is guilty of oud ft is, tho the ground will beet A> The ground wo fc ‘There iid not ain, “4 1 be woes the Rite States se the eine Tappewad, shen Je caot aon the A eonditonal syllogism i inwlid if the esi promise denice the antecedent. This ili form is called the fay of| denying the antecstent 1 aos provi that he wos in fhe Unie States at that ne 1 0s, th tie grind a ewe, AE Pharos conto have conte he rime ei wot rain “A Tharfre, the growed i ot et “< 2‘The est and the fouith sytoglcas hee are val. The ist. follows the modus tollens for, and the fourth follows the ‘modus ponens form, However the second and thir sylogiams are invalid, In the second splosism, where the fallacy of ating, te consequent Is commited, even if both premises are te, be ‘anno he certain that the conchsion fs also true since there ar ther proweguisites to be eligible to vote such as elsesship and Inaving register as a voter Your cousin may have mit the age requinemient tut he muy have failed to rege withthe COMELEC The third is alen inatit aving commited the fallacy of denying the antecedent. The defendant may kor that the statement is untrue But the suppose victim dl not actay ‘ely om the statement that was made Grhih i anole eesti trierion to prove there ws a fraud Entymemes We do not often find these syllogiste forms of arguing ia legal writing, Legal opinions and memorandums ate not weiien im such o foemal structure consisting of two prema nd @ conclusion. Hoveeves, mest legal arguments actully flow the sylogstic reasoning: we only have to analyze deeper the arguments te excavate the syllogisis. ae logician notes that am argumen’s basic structure, ay be obscied by an excess ‘verbiage. Dut an argument’ stracure may lao be abcuned for us... because its to sparse and has missing components Such arguments may appear sounder than they aww becatse we sre unaware of important assumptions nade by ther. Consider this onesentence argument penne! by Justice Blackanun in his Rot. We opion Mo Ep, Wh Gand Reto: fa ean fl ees 20 This right of pone, wheter i Be founded in the Fowrtsonth-mendinent's concept of personal Ibert and restritions upon tte actin, ws wef iti, a8 fhe Disiet Court detain, inthe” Now Amendment's nscrectin of ght to the pope rad enough So enn roman dis tether or not to terminal er papnancy ying bow the surface of Justice Mlackmun's agument ie the folosng slots The right of pricy i guranteed by te Feanteth or Dt a Aromas decision to ermal her regtey pet y he ight of pene ‘cision wether to Then tor her egy protec ly the Fourie 7 Nath Amend Sometimes i is mare an a snatler of rearranging sentences and rephrosing sttsments 10 match up sith the syllogistc form. Sometimes a Tyg writer doest’t mention all parts of he slog, leaving one ta ead betwee the lines, One ay ji the cones tht the Cyborerime Prevention Ate Tunconstcutionat by mentioning only. cme premise the Gyberedime. Prevention Act intringes om our” freedom of jecpresom. The argument is incomplete, ut ican easy be Completed and assesses ith tepand to it valcty By supplying the missing promise = aw is unconstitutional ndinges on fur reedoin of expression. ragetodaeat Loom Lamp: Aue oO Le Tae BO iat (ncn sie Blaney OUT AE UTpart being “understand” of only “in the min “eatigr” 1s called an In ordinary legal discourse, arguments and inferences are ‘xpressed enthymemuticaly: The teason ie easy to understand 4 lige body of legal statements ean be presumed to becom knowlege, and Sogal practitioners save themscles table by not repeating wellknown and perBaps trivially trae ropostions that their listeners al sade ean perfety well expected! to supp for dhemeelves” Meneouer its mot at a lusua! fora legal argument to be thetoically more pert sail persuasive when stated enthemematcally: tun when ‘enunciated in complete detail As Arsiofle wrote it hi Rito, ‘Sheets Hat. relvow antigens ese te loner appa Jn each ofthe following eeteymemes, ean you supply the issng prem: R isu fied desig i Ks ecient by Ravsns tse letter Jo. Karls i "areos, Ror kas pray hile ed. Manuel fas been soon vinning awey from bog ere byte alo ering. ‘Manuel is mar ely 0 the burglar In the first passage, the missing premise is: One wh hs ied desir 4k mare tke toil In the other argument what ‘was only imply stated was People eho lee from the scene of crime are mone ikaly guilty than they di no ee Polysptogsins Aside from not explicily expressing arguments and opinions in standard syllogism, lage) veritecs also have the ‘Ragu ooo amp A Ga Cesta Tein 0 "AT “ tendency to pile one syllogism on top of another. We cal these angumens 3b “palyullgions” A polysyllogiem is 9 sets of syllogism in which the conclusion of ane splogism supplies 2 premise ofthe next syllogism. Typically, plysyllogists ae used ‘because more than one logical step i needed to reach the desiced conclusion Be an the oaks fr something ike this as you pik apart complec legal opinion: Anat tot conte ffivnation enolic for etion ty the puilic i a public PDS contains formation sowie or nsec aye pai ‘Those, FDS ea pd document args fsa her PDS, DDS sa yn dostment Thayne, Virsa o public acumen Enisiyngo pubic document ise cial fs. Verge ffi public denne. ‘Thavefone, Verges commited aerial ofewse Anyone. proce 69 commie 0 etal offense should be dsmissed from government ares comet acriinal fe Thevfore, Vargas ought to te diss from _poteramené service 2Chapters Inductive Reasoning in Law “ny tf oe ato pv fe. _Frow may. is reser. = fe = Wi oer I the beginning of Chapter They, we briefly discussed what inductive arguments are and difirentiated. them feoen deductive arguments. Now we can get a clase ok at inductive rguments and how important ate they in legal rensoning Inductive aguments are arguments in which the prembes are ite to rosie spp bunt sone ede forthe Une dative angumens hich drow out th ot information. alway eontainat in the prem inactive arguments pve thor information te than whet he Premises ar saying, fan induce angumen hate ae Jn the canhcstan gis beyond the eidenes enh Ha Frome Lis for then hat inductive arguments Jat Sim that the cos is estas er ea Tl proce junmnice the tath of the. eolasion. What induce swgmerts i tht her orton, tse on the penn, is likely or probably true. es ‘The absence of compete certainty, however, does not dlifalo the importance of induction tthe lave, Dehactive easuing snot applicable eases where there is me established Jaw or biong: precelent, or clear statite to provide the major 8 premise of our legal argument. And there are so many cases of this in law Here, the Inryer must build the mje premise hrimself He has to draw upon the cumalative experience ofthe judiciary, the specific holdings of other cases. When be has gather a saffcient eas lay, he will then formulate a general norm that fupports is aim. i ie indactive teaconing thts seeded hen Aside feom enabling ws to fashion a general re when such is not readily availble, inductive reasoning f what We chiefly employ in determing the facts of the case. Indeed, disputes i court are most often not about fans, but about matters of fet Was the person acewsed prevent in this place wero the cme ws commited ees he na ifort pace se hes claiming? Did tho act of 4 cause the inj of BP The cont rma rst determine the facts before wus or sates axe applied to those tes. To accomplish this, se primal rly on euetive reasoning Deosions on cases are elten, detved fom intuctively Inferring hat given the ruth ofa set of particule carametanees| dain about the cace ie justified, Jurisprudence of xscent ‘inuage teach us that conicion cin be had even upon drcumnesatal evidence given that the sheumstancis proven should consttate an unirelinschain which leas one to fir ant reasonehlecorcusom pointing to he accused 1 the exclusion of thas, a the author of the crime People ws: Paguntolan™ Changed with a exime, Pagantslan and his companions were contieted by the court based on Bis and pieces of cincurnstanoss shown by the tell These pleens of evidence it aha ean tLe ot 188). et m0 Penne ne‘ollecively indicate that Paguntalan and his ‘companions acted in concert had a cameron design and understanding 10 Kill the viel. Thovgh no iret evidence of conspiracy sva8 shown in the evidence, this did not detct trom the fac, a6 sarge by the prosecution. that the act of Paguntatan in killing his victim as also an tof Ins co-conspirators. The prosecution as. ange thot the time honored jrtspraence is that deck proof is not essantial fa prove eanspirocy Kray he Shown by a number of indetinte acs, conditions and circumstances which vaey according 10 the purposes tobe secomplishet apd fom sehich may Togically bo inferred that there was Inductive Generatirations ‘There aww many types OF inductive reasoning, and Ae simplest and most camvon of these types is called “indutioe etait.” An inductive generalization fs “agement tht nls onrcevises of serple ejlation to wee wat eed ‘se popadetion as ¢ whet." This claim és genet clei that tnahes a statement about all most of somne members of «class, group. oF set, The flowing are some exainples of gener cls Allow sbudets we req stay tation Every performance-shaeing dg is bron fhe Tee Francs Hewsays ae not adie eourt, Most corswessinen are against te legalization of "creamy stam a, Cnt Tiina Suter hon 25 Although the stle of each of these four cain aifer all fre general clnims. Since the fist two use the words “all” and "earny’ we ean wecognize without mich trouble tha Uy refer to all mambere of cass, grup, or se, The fst refers to all members of the group fine shidents the sooo! eelees 0 all members of the group performance-enitncing drugs. Even though the thiedclaien des not wee the words every oral foo general claim Further ths cai s noes: general jst Beene Intell ws what hearsay ate not rather than wht Hey are. The finat example specially mentions most congressmen, but i should be understond to eft tothe entire case nf eongresen, 1 makes a gencel claim abot the whale cass of congressmen beast lames that most an against he legalization of divurce and implies that Ye remainder ate not aga An inductive generalization uses evidee about limited amber of people ot things of a certain ype (he sample population, to make » generat claim about 4 lager geoup of people or things of that type he population a= «whole, Inductive generalizations have the ollawing foes Z percent ofsered Poe 6, his probe, theo, hat Z pronto all Fs eG Por ample, we wank to know what percentage of sudents at» particular college are in favor of abllching the sleath penalty Cleady it wuld be exeemaly dificult ¢9 ask every student atthe cole whether they favor abolishing Hie death peru. What ste can practic ui fo sect» gate of students and determune thei portion on the iste, en then to genecalize th results to the whole scent body. An inductive [povzratization could be writen ot fllSitysfve perc of students at X Callege wo tere guested ave for of ablishieg ‘eth peat. 1s probe, nfo, ht sitive percent of TD stent % Cll ae for of otis he dnt penely Evaluating Inductive Generstizations ‘Thowe ano two important questions we must ask when i comes to determining sshether inductive genetlistons we strong or weak Is he Sample ange Eoagh? ‘he sire ofthe sample population i an essential factor in determining whether the conelasion abou the population as @ ‘hoe i justified or not. sample is “lage enough when its clear that we b not rushed t0 judgovert, that we have: not formed 2 hasty generalization, Admittedly. this busines of speciying what we mean by “enough snot eos, but tentimes fe common sense can Pelp us doeide when the sample i large enough. As ale of thumb, the mow examples yet find he stronger you asuent becomes, tn Camm s Commonne Tavs Cay eer judge ais lambasted an exper est lottemptins te foros mises ect loc on os slservatin fel Bee patents Basa onthe fee patients DE Schentel) for served canacs induced tran heap he develope hs hing nee ht he applied te O'Conner thus coming the logical fallacy tron ot inerrant sts generalization) oes when a person rime cetera rl rom De, Schertbel has illogically crested a “binding sincera rule” based upon insufclent data (One thing that we need to consider in determining the suficiney of the quantity of the ample i the nny of the ‘whole population. In our example regatding. the students Porition om death penalty, awe mst know around how many Students are thete in the college. Suppose there are atounel hece thousand students, 2 sample of twenty students 36 clesrly insutficient. A hundred students, however, may already be enough. Adding ity more will increase the strength of on argument Suppose we have thse hundees students for ou sample, sill that make the conelasion of out generalization acceptable? Not necessasiy. Although the sample definitely lwge enough, there is anoiher factor we need sn evaluating the steength of inductive generalization, This, we need to ask another question, eth Semple eprestaig? Although those wane three funded stents who exe interviewed for the survey, the generlization may be weak the tivoe hundeed students only zepesenta particular portion ofthe whofe stutent population. Suppose these thiee unde tadonts ae all members of Christ Youth in Action (CYAN 3 Ctholie ganization wf young pple, thes mass ot actually represent the hole student population if a significant number fof students in tht college isnot a member of tat organization. This will make cut conclusion questionable since such nembership to that organization gest fluences one's vive fon est jenalty fr the Catholic Chatch strony oppress kind of punshment. We call thet kind of sample a bissed sample. :[A sample is representative if there i diversity in out sample that i the various subgroups ofthe whale population are represented inthe seleted respondents}. In the ease of the students, the sample should elles the “same percentage distribution inthe entire student body of X College as tepands course, year grade average, age, 0 wngonizain, igi, 1 some 4 few variables. Thus, s€ ou sample comes from the Aiferent subgroups it sa nepresentative sample This basis for ealuating he strength of our genrafization is especially iesportant- when the’ populetion ave are dean with. 1 heterogenous, ne way to ensues sutfcent relevant diversity is by making the sample random. random saniple i “ave i wich al reer of the ul ppovaonby to Be th some For instance, you could interview memes randomly by choosing every fifth or keh name on the membership list ‘nother possibility would be to randomly inrview people ins common meting place The ara of erating a tandomt sample Is fo ensure that the diversity of the largt is reflected bythe sample twit not be a random sample fit excludes pt of the Inu. For example sample of college students in ¢ paicuat unversity chosen ftom the students coming out from men's Jucker room would not indude any femsle students In the ssmple “Tis hae been the problem in the lace poling blunder fat happened in the United States tn 1936, Literary Digest mmagarine conducted 2 massive polling effort to predict the ‘outcome of the Pieskdentil elect bebweon AY Landon aout Franklin Roosevelt The Digest poles well over two fallin people, and the wast majoriy alicated they woul vote for London (keep in mind that modern news organizations theis polls on the mxporses of 1,000 propel. In the acl election haw, Roceevelt won 523 electoral vos el Landon ‘eveived only eight. How did Literary Digest get it s0 wrong, utr ser & Pewter Ce king: A Users Mee 26 (012) ‘when it had crated is rule from a massive numberof pasticlar ‘amples? The problem was the Digest compose its polling list from telephone directories. In 1936, only about 40% of households owned telephone, usually those who are in the “upper cass, Thus, oven if hey used random sampling in picking, the buividuals to cll and ask for thelr presidental preference, the comple poplation is an unrepresentanve group of the ‘American public ac that me ® Samples may also be hissed sehen surveys rele patticipants to nate contact rather tha sing a survey faker to Scively solst responses, For example, sorveys requiting that pavtcipants respond by sending 2 ext message, going online phoning in their response are They to get unrepresentative results sine the respodents ate self-cected. Only peopte who fe particulary inomeste inthe sue a kay to respond tothe Survey, To)-make matiers worse, unless surveys proven respondents from contributing thee ansiers more than ance the Sata hey toe skewed by unscrupulous repeat respondents ‘ho are tying to infiuence the outcore.* "We carob tht whe ete sary compan inthe Pippin ike SHS, Pale Asn) cont ep pol, Shay nay hove enly sound Li to 2200 report 10 represent the whote Filipina popaation Goch one Can ‘Hrs ion w poset) Bot hee survey are uly ble The the sme ken rovln rpecating floret etre of ups ef the hale poplin, hat meso, he respons ome rm teen rpions ofthe county. scertcononic ‘Guns ae groups at soon When we cannot do mich about our sample (uel a6 fcreasing it, we can make our generalization cecepsble by fovinlsting an appropriate vonchaon, A. good inductive oes an & Pe! Newby, Cit Ty AUsrs Minus ten Ja & Pol Meaty, tel Tigers Maus 0202) 6angument should make a conclusion that is appropiate to the evidence offered by its premises. The conclusion should not ‘sim move than ts premises can suppor, Fr esample All tr ofthe Malaysians Let are joo in uses, Se mast Malye ae gorda basse, ete the cenetusion claims thot ma est Malastans ate good in bois, Bu ts premise only cited ten Malaysian who are food ia business. We could make the argument stung by making eur conctusion less sweeping, that fs the concheion "ould cover tess ground. For example, if we instead say Allen fe Maloy ar guano $0, many Motaysinne regu i sins rgument would be strong. Given our premise, the ‘conclusion fs more likely to be tre if its clam i tare hited festictng itself to many rather than ghost Malaysian. Othey Phrases that could soften the conclusion are possible prob nd likely. Remember that inductive generalizations shoul ee ‘vest thei eoncusions, Lets take anes exam None of te tm tence Tones this scoot enous tow tap Spr So, tacher te is scl ks ape Spanish We can see that the conclusion isso swecping that dhe argument ot strong. Afterall if there juat one schon ta that schoo! who knows how to spak Spanish the concacion voll easily be false. To play it sat, the, we might conclude Instead that “Very fu ify, tein bo this sehen! anew to “8 Sounich* This sail a sweeping conclusion, but allows for the possibitty of a few exceptions, This. motes the relison likely to be tue and sho: te acgument is aan, Analogical Arguments noe ype find aumento commonly ed ‘ntatranlogll ent Asin “cpt of ng bet” on ima Tine ines, We fate Sree in calle stance exis aml io ere et see ee orate ‘tare you ae erste the haat me poste We sn nce smi poms ons Pers lowe en sting pe, ‘Ashlee sto, Ie cost 0 ge rs mr, 18s hee tp oe a. Indeod, most of oue everyday reasoning is based on analogy, Joan reasons that hoe new par of shows wil be durable fom the grou that her other shoes with the same brand an rae have been usable, In dh same way, Viele infers tha he vl enjoy the action mavic het ging to watch tonight because Wha the some diector and esting ators as the past action movies he enjoyed. Analy lsat Ue bass ofthese sp, ondinary arguments we make eatbe notice that none ofthese eget cetsin oF demonstatively valid, None of thelr cancusions follow with Toe neces from Shir premises. Its logiealy posible that Jats nee pic of shoos will not ast long or Visto 6 not enjoy that aston movie. ust ko any inductive argument, thete is mo imathematcalcorsinty in snaogicl arguments. However, the ais of thse aepuste is tay sil be teasomaly accepted. ‘what makes an argument by analogy? Analogical ngurments dopor® tpn st analogy oF sat betes feo fr more things. Analogies compas tio of moze things; ‘ing Seem, tal rd Mg: A Shs tite 0. osnguments by anstogy go one step futher. They clsio that nother sinilarty exists, given the similarities alkeady recognized. © Whereas analogies simply pont out ssimdarty arguments by analogy clsim that ertainsiilarites ee evidunce {hat there is another siianty (r other simulates). This type of reasoning ha «simple structure: A and B have characterise X Abas charateristiY. Therefore, Bhas characteristic chee eng i ry wl a ow pty in lecdng wht rule of lato apply va parca ease in Scitngaiputed fact eestons Lets yo the tnd apaliction of anslgial Tessoning. In lw Legal seams comply iin coming up wih anv egal cam base oly ‘stashed precedents Typ, ths ene thats ol cee fs ompned toa oder one, an the outeame nf eno cae Broce onthe has he the’ uta El Len Be toremost American authority on the oe of analogy inthe la cksrbe aafogea reasoning as a wee sep proses, esas sinartis between ro casas, 2) anu the oe ot ta embed i heft ens, and 3) appt the tof lato the send case. ° This (orm of eaening Kleen howe datas foie or inductive. genmaticaa, Racal tk dlstuton reyes us to resson frm univer proses anal pee tt Athos fst kt socal nse tles fom a nant of spacings aloe in conti, cakes. onedo-one compatsons Wnt ney eneraiains or elance on unversl rls Inthe lane at "ogicinns anclogy fea process of ressning from the patience to the pasa. {etus look at an exemple tolustrte the distinction Suppose you are to defend a legal claim that the use of Imashuana shout be allowed by the state, The isue pertaining "én Le An notctan Lege Reston (180, 6 to this matter is hinge on two opposing legal opinions ~ one that asserts mazjuana isa hea her and the other that claims marijuana is a dangerous drug. Which of these two positins is to be followed? Without a ceae universal rule or past eases on polnt, deductive loge and ineuctive generalizations ge of 6 help rsteac your must ey an the powcr of analogs fo convince the cour that mariana it be Geated as healing herb, To defend your stand, you must aseer that maria, ike ther herbs that are not prohibited by ls, ls nontonie. It das ol contain substances that lil brain ells or inerase sks of cance, ‘There ave boon no deaths associated with marijuana use. On| the contrary ike legal herbs, marijuana provides more heath benefits than sks. I helps in cusing thoumateid arthritis, Glgbetes, PTSD, epllepsy, antbiourerstant infections and rewrotogical disorders, ‘The process of drawing thew the devertant fingerprints atthe scare ofthe crime al the fact that the defendant was found with a large amount of money without being ale 0 give any acceptable reason. The jdge tll straw conclusion fiom such evidences about who has stolen the item base upon his/her knorstdge ofthe history of ponpl’s stone nother caus. Circurstantil evidence i safien fr onwiction ita) There is more than one cteumstance: by The faa font which the inferences ave derived are proven’ and, 0) ‘The combination of all he crcamctance suc as to prove ‘wonviction beyond reason outst Evaluating Analogical Arguments Just as them are good or bad aulics, thee are aso geod and ba analogical agents. On of the fallacies o! teasing fs elle fllacy of fase analogy (which will be discuss ater in fhe chapter on fallacies). I results from coemparing tv for move) things that are not wally comparable. I is « matter of laiming that two things share a certain similarity on the bass of cher siilarities, while overionkingimpovtentdfssinartes "ing Cop & Gar Chen inreston Loi 194) ‘tng Copa Ca.Coben. Ieuan Lege e854) = ‘How can we deiertnine If an analogical argument i good? “There are certain criteria that can guide our evaluation of the spument’ soundness. “The tet criterion t be considecd inthe evaluation of an analogical angement i he elevance of siaetes. Consider, for ‘example the fllowing analogieal argument Arison signal tno le the owghist il Ago nominate sontons, raking he fare 0 ‘uy inmigeation dscuments'e crime, We an expect the New Mca son past ser Ue. feral, [New Mei © @ Bt eA, gi Ma bt haze a large putin tiga, ant bth rarely Mesiz." tn this example, New Mesos compared wo Artzona, Te argucr has etl tv ways hich ty ate sini thy both haves large popltion mira and ae bor by Mexico. ty cvltatng tis analogical fngument we Cover wht the indie cia tween he two ttre fekvant or imlevant tothe eeacasion ofthe argument. The isoue te whether New Meds will Waly pass a lar Imigaton Ine With rexpret to this Hae, he ainiain Suh te eer ev fo he coda te njuent Hower suppene one wil te the sae chon tased on tho premise tat Aan New Mico ae bode ter 1 Repubican govemor and oth have several tora toms ae pals, Tes wil not be ood argument Fees though then one dtd snd btweim the vo sey tise Siniloriie hae de baring an ibe sue of posing et mito i Cons agother eampe 9 prions ce ase 1 Sole Soy’ Heyl adsl Cau tr oat Soon sued Cert ove th ig k had been to bere Jadcon BP Mary Cen Tring: Aes Mon 01)wor, In a case at hand (Case 2), Giovanni bought Mike's bicycle siving as payment counterfeit maney. Giovanni knev i was phony money. Mike discovered the feud and sued Giovaay for the rlurn ofthe bicycle. Will Mike also win the case? Yeu What 4s the similarity in the two casas? The lwo persons being raed both dishonesty acquind possession of another's proper thie simibrity js rekvant on the question of whether or mot the defendant has acquted ownership sights of te property Another important enterion by which —anatagicl argument may be judged has to do with the whecont Aissimilaritios between the entities being compared. Consider this example _ President Clinto’s actions ate ot just abut sx, * Tut consite “struts of jute jus as former President Nixon's actions were, Both Nixon and Clinton ted about thei earhict in tying to cover §up an improper conduct and Clinton even ei it Under oath. 1 Nixon's actions were impeach {Clinton's shoul also be. Tis ses to be & goa analog agaal a the slot clad has Forno fhe ove of whats or ant Girton setions oe anpethaie However one eat eet oe doit argument by cing a sleant erence al eae Beticeon the eiice” comport whieh stg tha Nin hs were mu : tre mae nan stp fever up ‘imi aon teak detraciom of peey sad stereo ted to abuses ot presealpower er alae prion cfs, whens Clin atin ane che Senses wee not an aboce of presenta! pote al veyone le abit sex 30 hat fis ats tid nef fo ingen. ‘weaken the , Clinton's sie cant ‘Lot us put a twist sogarding the Issue of the bicjcle ‘owner’ attempt o recover this property This wil be Case 3. Quite similar to Case 2, suppoie Giovanni obtained the beyco by fraud, misrepresenting some Important facts hat induced Mike bo ianser the ile of Whee, that betore Mike rn se to ever the bicyle, ivan sold to Mervin who didnot know of Glovann's fraud. and Mervin pid Giowams the market value of the bicycle Mike sued Mevvin for the rstam of his property, Can an anaogieal Aegurient sucued in defending the clan that Mike shoul win the cae and resaver the bievele as the Ho precedent ces Comparing ths present case with the previous cases although there are similares among the eases, the presen ease has a felevant diference from the previous cases ~ Mervin has no Knowledge that the item sos suse acquired by Giovani fs the previous eases the logat battle was between the innocent owner andthe erongdoct the thie or the defraud Bt in the present case, the batle 5 between tn innocent persons — i i ketoeon the innocent otener and fhe innocent buyer, That isa solevantditforence that can fatty the bayer’ ‘ownership ofthe bieyte. Lets put mother tis In Case 4, suppose that, ke in Case 1, Roger stole Sonny's bicyte, except that fle ie Case 3, before Sy ea sue forts return, Roger sold it to Cesar Also Bike in Case 3, Cesar as fancae shat i was ston ant paid Rogee is ful macket value Sonny aust to recover the bieyle, Wil Cesar alse be free ofan Titty or Sony can win the case and tecover the stem? Aithough thew are simiantice Between Cases 3 and & the fostcome can be different The origin owner can reaver the cycle from the buyer despite the fact thatthe buyer had good faith im busing the stem and was unatwate of te dishonest sequislion‘What elevant diffrence do Cases 3 and ¢ have? ‘The celevant ditesence was how the bicycle was sequin from the original owner ~ thet and frauen inducement. I the case of thett (Cases 1 and 4), the orignal owner (Sonny) ‘ever intended to transfer th te to Roger the propaty wes taken without Sonny's knowledge and without hic tent pose the tle. That means thi no tle Was ever pared. aut Reger scquicdl no te, OF stated difoneriy: he acquired a vokd tile, And he could not pass on to someone ale a beter tie than he hnweth hah In the case of froudutent inducement (Cases 2 and 3) Mike slid intend anal oct to transfer the tite, although the oxener wea ised by Giovanni’ frautulent inducement 8, Clovonn aed acquit the ie, though tas a “oie fas opposed “ant fille This means thot Mike can sill cover the bieyle fhe seed {gic while Giovoun sll had the tem beceuse be could sill oc he te, Buti, before Mike ste ovoid the tt, Giwvannt sola it tw ax innocent buyer who paid ll valu(o. Bome Tale Parchaser),the tite that he had transicred t9 tie BEP became on ttle, Ino longer cou be “ah Hore we sc that i the examples given iis important in ‘natogical reasoning to check ovr simi si how citexee the Fass te in varios cases the fet re suibtonialy san the svscome af the esses wil not be diternt is ifthe fects hare relevant dilerences, the outcome in one case will not be the some in snes case Arguing that the contusion of the anaboical reasoning ‘olbies spite relevant clifnenes between th: enties being compared lads f the fllay of falke analogy as the fllowing ‘case example would shove, Thain were te simi ne et he ptton Tete te coven onthe tof ee ements wn eal on he st dean thet few eben thatthe previous rung wee emmeons: The {nse he pain “oly dul it he ely ately ra hs ce Cpe inthe econ, the et scion eer toga doce wes in he way meno Kilosboyan es. Morator® In 1995, PESO. anel POMC signed an Equipment Lease Agreement wherein PGMC leased confi Intery equipment and accessories to PC5O. not receipts alloted Sato Tre ewes lr 8 yas and POSO pombe he oes, pon’ the expiration af Hea, PESO may urchase the equipment for P25 aviltion, The felling orth 8 ptition wae Hes declare the erecront wah because ie solve of PSDs Cfrant tse dng ig Moe imaprfotiy wits Set 20) of Art SD othe 87 Constitution and tht standing can no ong te questioned Bocuse i ha come te eo the erent “The responcent answered that the ag is ehiernt fom the Contract of Lease ond ere fn bidding zequied. The power to determine the a Scent (1985)‘agvoument is advantageous s vested in the Board of Diseciors of PCSO, Do patitones haw sanding? The High Court eld in’ the negative dlectaring that stow sis cannot apply, The previous ruling sustaining. the standing of the Bettionersis. ceporture om the settled ralings on real pats in interest Heciuse no censtiignal fssues were actually involve Moweover the lan of the Gave cannot aie ‘apply since the present case is not the same ee ligated by the partos befove in Kioshaw em gone - the ruling eanooe be in any sense be regal asthe In of is cose. The pati ate the same vt the cases age not This, the Rae a Conetusiveness cannot stl ap The petitioners asked» gusstion to which they made up an answer Their attempt at peychoonalysis, detecting a Freudian slip where one evils, may be mare revealing of thele own Uunexpressed wish to find motives where there ate none which they can impute t same members of the Cours, ‘An issue actually and dieely passed upon and. determine in a forirer st cannot aga be raw in question i any ue action between the same paces involving a eitferent use of action. But te rue doesnot apply tissues of aw at least when substantially unsted eels ane fnvolsed. When tho sccond pooceeing betes an instrumené or transaction ienticat with, but fn a form separable fom the one dealt with i the fst proceeding, the Court is fee in the second prosweding to make an independent examination of the legal matters at ese, Since the matter in question i» different cet th prvi dion es st pre determination of the potion’ standing. Standing, is a coneept in constiutionad Taye and here no consttational question is actally involved. The ore appropriate iste is wehether the petitioners far oal patios teres.Chapters Fallacies in Legal Reasoning ee pom OY fom hei gar ot or on In ordinary conversation, vou may have heard someone refer toa false yet commonly accep Beit as a follay The bio tor exampl, that skeping shi your hai ic wet wl lewd Wo blindness fs considered hy others a fallacy becuse thee ho scientific bass for ts truth. This the Bay sense in hich the fexm i wed tn esi falacy isnot 9 fase bole bt mistake ‘enor in thinking and reasoning. A pasos may be composed ‘Fentrly tee statements or belief ut it isa fallacy if he hind of unking or resseing sed that pasage loge Judges and lawyers sometinis use the term sn the ay sense to clescibe something. that not sopparte by he foc shown in these statement rem some case cited by Aldine? Ts cour finds tae te radiated even stilished tat Riana i ari to a bs Avvercan oma who wos discribe 03 iy shag rill The serfs ha st eens he iy Of te Plants sory thet Bnew ee bisad gan Asin-American women and expected then tebe mec nd eerie Respondent argues this interpretation permits tedaction fo the obliga pares gros sec ofall {ese pb the poss ose, The fer af thie egsonont is ntolous All foxes pbs on the ona income om nt dadacted froth aco of he Hise pao” [otwithstaning its popular o ay use, exemplified bythe foregoing excerp's fom legal cases, logicans and the legal peotession generally use the term “fallacy” in a ator sense to describe an enor in eeasoning vather than a sity ina satement or eli In this chapter, ee wil ook into the nature of these iloglal and inconeet ways of masoning and their ‘arious hinds We encounter fallacies in pital speeches, commentares, newspaper editorials, legislative debates, sdcortisements, TV talk shows, las discussions a0 ordinary onverstions, Fllacks ate deceptive and misleading since, though they are illogical oe ivortet, they soem to be corect land acssptabie. Although they ars not logically sound, they ae often payehalogiclly perstasive and, thus en to be followed ‘accep by peal Inacier not tobe deceived by this hind of reasoning, we Drove to boawvae what hes fallacies ae. fe do nek Rect ‘opponents, se are more fikoly to be defeated by them, Some thing govs wih actos, wing Hem male easier For w 0 void them or attack them, and, thus, spares us tem bein fooled ar misled cary Tze Canybel, £0 Ca Ap. 4,06FORMAL AND INFORMAL FALLACIES ‘Traditionally, fatlaces ae dlvded into two mala groups: formal and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies ore those that may be identifed through mee inspection of the form and susture of an argument” Fallacies ofthis Kind ar four On| in deductive arguments that have identiable forms, “Chapter Three which s mainly concerned with deduction eecussed these forma falc. For example the dedietive asonkt Al nes av epi. 1 fs ev tastes There, al fsa ep This dedietiveangumen has the folowing fon Att Aare. ‘AN Care at Tove, Cen ‘Though mere inspetion af tis fom, on can see th the argument is Wogica, The fet tha AYA ate B and All C ae not Aare tue dovs not guarantee that All Cage not Bis also tre As dns been mentioned in Chapter Thee this formal fallacy called fallacy ofillcit majo. Regardless ofthe content ofthe argument 25 Tang as ils form violas the ules of logic, the argument onomits 9 tual fllacy Informat fallacies are those that can be detected only ough analisis ofthe content of the argament”” Consider the following example roost M schon Lage or: Fudan of sting 3007, = just right to give shi stutota pseig vam. You se, she fs bauble by serous fem problems et preset. “Her frily cat ford her educations is he et oho ayer ution fer he fs MO, se nit mo be sapporod anne by be te vamlning this arguement, We can snp tin te way ae pati he folasing on A students ih serious amily poten saul ot sien fing mar (isa sent et serio family problons. Phere, should ot be gcc fing mark Iss symboic form willbe Ali Ae Al Care Thee al Car Since this form is vali, one might conclude that de seaurmunt i osc. But the sepument isnot legal because of ftscantent. Lanking atthe content of the argument (partcusely fn the Rist premine)ne eel det the erroncoss reasoning caine in he argument ~ hich says thatthe sisi going the student a passing o Js his/her frily station rather than his/her perfomance in the cass Since Chapter The fas almacy alk with the varie formal facies, this chapter will only foeus on iafocmat fellas. The various informal falseies accomplish tele pparposr of miseading or llogiclly persuading people ta beieve for accept something in so many ilfeent ways. This leds Togicians to grup inorena fallacies info vatous catagories. In Ine book, those fallacies will Be ascassed under the‘ategories:allades of ambiguity, fallacies ofeelevant evidence and fllsies of insufficient evidence We would like to ada caveat at this point. Since we are ‘alnly analyzing legal reson, we Will mot atampt to dees ail the fallacies in eich of the thas categorie: Rather ae al roncentrato on those fallacies that often find expaceton i the haw Fallacies of ombiguity ae comavited because ofa misuse of lngusge, They contain ambiguous or vague langage which is detbersiely used to mislead people. Failais of inolovance sto nat have a prablem with language but with theconnecteny ot the peestise and conckiion. They octur because the preecs arent logit evant tothe eelssion. They are isle, beause the promises ane psychologically seherant, athe eaond their povsons toyed he lt mor A he language sed. very cae of double eh Govern ant in fv oft eee beens tasers ne nto he Impose nor peed imposed. beyond wha he sates expel and Shey pot The gestion infeed iv this append ie the filowing: Hoss sou de silt Be casi fr purposes of the Kan, under paragraph 182 ar mater vegneph 29° of ection 8 th Tf aw of 18002 There are psent two fundamental onsierations which ide the ny out the gal itera. The Hat i by tllng int account the Pucpe ofthe arte ant then sedmowng tt i isin wealty toad a6» detached porto rey vehicles, " * The second point is thal pongiagls M1 6 a senerat provision tehie paragraph 1 is» speci provision. Where there is tn the seine state a pavticutar enactment and algo @ gener on which in ite most comprehensive senso would inckule what Ip embraced in the formes, the particular enactment must be operative, and the general fetictient must be taken #0 affet only such eases tvthin ss general Tanguage 95 3° not within the provisions of the particular enactment. 1° ‘he High Count then conclude that the tia judge was core in elasifying dist shields under paragraph 197 of ction 3, ofthe Tani Law of 1969, find i tsusng to cneity thems ander paragraph 1 of these section of the law Loe ens the Constitution Slatutes should he give, whenover possible, a meting that will not bring thes in cant ith she Constttion It tars sepeating that whenever a fas 16 sn confict wth the Constitution the ater prewail As the fundamental a ofthe Jalal ws must ake ts ‘ee from the Constitution, Moran, the ove ta enact ws is 5 grant by the Constitition 0 the legislative branch of government pursuant to te savertign wil ofthe peaple which taliied ‘his next cas, the heart of this controversy brought tothe igh Count by way ofa petition for pectin under Rute 5 of the Rules of Court the night of the people ta dinselly propose rnendents tothe Const through the syste of iitiatve je XVIE_ of the 1987 Constiution. special alien, as this eystom of tinder Section 2 of Ae Undenbtedly this deman Initiative was unknown hv the people of tis conte, exceptperhaps to a few scholars, before the drafting of the 1587 Constitution, The High Court in this ease declared that = The 1986 Constitution Commission el hough the erga papnen ee ‘he i sponsor of Be proposed Article a Antone o Reson ofthe Constitition, racial ts syste as “ivanell.” Rd 't Is for bom unter the 1935 one 1979 Constitutions, ony feo Imes oF peowsingemendents to or Pols’ af. te Canetition sry rca, 2, (by Congres upon cote of taut ofa Is acs ad 2) ry a eoctittionl convention. Fortis and the ter reasons eer discus, see rset ogi ais ours is pete Defensor Santiago ve COMELEC™ The ise began when Atty. Delfin, President of PIRMA Sled seit the COMELEC a petition to mend the fundamental chaser anchoring the same fon Adie AVI, Sec, 2 af the 108? Constitution, Which provides for the right of the paople to fori pero dav ropes amends is petition sought to Te the tert its of elective ofc, Said peltion was therealer given luo course by the COMELEC ancl set for public hearing. 1 was during the public hosting that several intevenors appeared seeking 1 stp he proceedings and dismiss tho instant petition arguing, ser als, that the constitutional provision fon people's initiative nly be implement vend the consti can ot by Taw ty be pased by ‘Congress to tohich there mane se tho nia Limited uo amendments the Constitution, not to revision hteof considering. that term Limits fonstittes 2 revision and therefore beyond the scope of what fs granted unde the initiative, it he ow provi for iret initia fo propre neds tothe Canstiaion? White the High Court agreed that the Le infeed fo cover mative to propose amendments to the Constitution, upon closer seratiny shoved That the statutory enactment was not a full irmplenenttion ofthat Fight Moreover the Supreme Cour noted thatthe inclusion of the word "Constittion” therein vias a feleye afterthought. The word 3 neither germane for relevant 1a stid section, which exclusively relates to initiative and referendum on national laws and focal Iss, ordinances and resolutions That section i silent a 9 amnentints on the ‘Constitution. As pointe oat earlier intive on the Constitution is confined: only to. proposals to fameral "The people ate not seconded the poser to hwcly props each, appoce, ot ec, in whole oF in por, the Constitution” through the system of ‘aii. They san only do so with spect 1 “les, nincs or esl The foregoing, caneluston further Duties hy the fact that this section was ted from Section 1 Sonate Bil No. 17, which solely refered toa statement of policy ov Isc nitive Gnd referenda aml appropriately used the phrases pose a enac®“pppanse or jel” and i cal sre po 1‘The use ofthe clause “pps teas sought to be eoncies, epprooed or meee ance ar reed” only” stengthons the conclusion that Secon 2, ‘quoted earlier excludes initiative on amendments tothe Constitution, White the Act provides subutes for Notional Inte ann Referondum (Subtitle I) and for Lac Initiative and Referenda (Subtitle Bi} no subee 's proved for itatce on the Constitution, This ‘conspicuous silence as #0 the later simply meats that the main thrust of the Act inittive and referendum oe national and loa! ls FH Congress intend RA. No, 6735 to Fay provide forthe implementation athe inti on mendotenis to the Constitution, st coud have provided fora subtle derefor,consiering that in the onder of hing, the primey of ines, on hierarchy of values, the tight of the people to Sivestly propose armendment to the Constitution fe rmiore important than the tase on national and lost aw ‘The High Couet also decared that it cannot seropt_ the aygument that the inte en mendes tothe Constitution i subse cer ‘ho subtle ox National Initiative nat Reeretuan bonus i isnatinat it sep (tr reading of Subtle H {National mite ana Refetndues} anal Subtle IM {Lora tniative sl Rofenndunn leaves soci for deb! thatthe asiicatio is not based an the scope al the initiative volved, but om isnot and ace Wis “national nitiat" f whats proposed to bbe adopted or enacted $6 ¢ nana! uy ot a law which oly Congress can pass 105s “oval initiate” sohat fe proposed to be selopted or enacted i 3 br orainants, or reat which only the lepilative bodies of the {governments of the awonomons region, provines, cies, municipalities, and barangays can pas, Fully - Blut stated, the right ofthe people Sova repose amendment Coston through the system of initiative would semain sm the al eb of he Catton nt tation. Sts Congress provides for its implemen thee we the Corton hs coped or ranted that right. dhe poople cannot exercise iti Congress for hatever reason, docs not provide for itsimplementation, Loves vie a-vis Lan Inu system of government, Cogs ofentines enact sow wn eo gs ae toppostion to previously enact laws. Wher a salter te leona tenor of diferent dates bt ae of equ heretical Sppliaien fo» poricular case, the cave denied There fecal shout preva over Cet Every statute mst be so canst ad harmonizcd with ther stitutes as Io form a unifoem system of jurlspradence"? en ashe! ta weslve conflicting provisions “Thus, courts are often asked ‘etwoon sla sates that late to the same subject mater oF ‘or have the same purpose tu the sine clave of persons or thing ane) 1 popes fansaon, 294 SCR 295 (188)or object Silay, every new state shoul be constr int cwnncction with those slteady existing ia elation to the same subject matter ane all should be made to harmonize and sand together af they ean tbe done by any falr and reasonable interpretation!” As such aw consiensd as no mts ae asi wad sie by side or eanstusd together Simply put, cach legislative act so be interpreted with reference tothe ether Je relating to the sme mattor or subject ‘This was the ease when the High Court was faced with tneo seemingly conflicting teatment of the computation of ihe by the Giil Code and the Revised Administrative Code in CIR 5 Brinetorn In this ease the High Court abserved that - Both Aatiele 13 of the Civil Code and Section 31, Chapter VI Book 1 Df the Administrative Cade of 1987 dead with the sine subject ‘matter—the omputaton of legal periods. Under the Cl Code, 4 year is equivalent 10-365 days whether it be a regular year ora leap year. Under the Administrative Code of 1987, however, 3 year Is composed of 12 calendar months. Needless to sate, lunder the Administeative Code of 1987, the number of days is ieelevant. There obviously exists 4 manitestincompatiiliy in the manner of computing gat periods under the Civil Code and the Admivistative Code af 1967. For this reason, ace old that Section 5l, Chapter Vi, Hook of the Administrative Code of| 1987, being the more mene law, governs the campuiation of Tegal pends, Le pero’ dave yr. Speclal mention souk! be made as negotls common lw Pancipkes = it has been sotled that “fete w cot rips nao tabu bw ‘vision, the Eltr mash prea in tis oe 40 8, GOMELEG: 5 SRA HE BDH 8591 Som 95 09) mn the case of amendatory Ins whose repealing, clauses enol cleae or vague to it fect tos precession ls, the Supreme Court held Ghat “rudimentary 1s the principle bye! Fermeneatice that ehaoges made By the Teyiluure inthe forme of monies 0 siale sould fe given effet, together eth other prs of he amend act. 1 not ob pesoed ht the sure. vrai suc changes, as ial 4m mere semantic exercise. There ‘must he same purpose iv making them, which shoul! fe escertntaed Tint gto fect" An amend! acs ordinarily fo be construed fit the original statute has been repesled, and 2 new and dependent actin the simentet fem had been adopted in is Sead, The amendment becomes part of th origina statute 35 i it had always been confined therein, unless such amenement invalyes the abeogation of the contractual relations between the state and others Interprets ob concnane egs ostopfis itezpetan, vie sagan that is best method of interpetstion is that ih Takes Las eamsintnt with other ws Accontingy, courts of hate, when conironted ith apparently conflicting statutes, [howl cndeasor to recone them instead of declaring ought the invatity one agaist the other Cours should harmonize ‘Bu if his spect, because Ue ave equally the handicork fof the sane egiltare sihere i poste 0 dos, he dof eau ‘Bernt aomaes it hae stato evo The ‘ravaoan vane CORELEG, 38 SORA 88 021 = Boose Garin ASP 665 © ayn Yoh, CORLEC, 355 SORA 181203)implied tepeal of the lticy singe the Iw may be eumatative oF ‘continuation of the of one? However if attempts to reconcile. these conicting provisions fai then the rleof thus to follow is to upd ie Satu of ter dat being a ater capresso legislative wl Aeges postr proms contains smog. Te rationale is simple: Tater Lae eepeals an eae one tecase it the Hater legiative wil Histo be pres tha he fame knee the bolder law an intended t dhange Te stg ests sbi ee # i inp ct emerge ee th Ct Cit te Amite Calg He aon Set 3 chi VR 1 ete Cae ne StH hE a it oe fen dg at ex (CIR 2s. Prinetoson™ In 199, Peimetown appli forthe wan or seed income an pid 127 enlanng at incense in the oot of fair ott mute an distin obtain financing for procs and foletingecfatles eas he el se nay Isilon scone cn food durmg the fist quar ot 192, espenden Si sured toe tha yon Iss dae oe income tee: Nevetbes respondent pa sedi witht ff Groot eal estate see Ue sion, galas. 238 SCRA 2 9H Ove vs COMELEG 27 SERA ODS) the BIR and way thescore entitled to tax refund oe tenet In 2000, however, the CTA dismissed the puttlon as st was fied beyond the two-year Prsectiptive peril foe filing judi clan fr tox Felund of tax credit It imeaked Seton 229 of the National Interna Revenne Cede (NIRC): “Se. 223 Recosery of tases Evonscusy ov Blgily Calectd [Ne sul prceing bl br mained i gy court {or the revvery of ty nations! internal revenue ta orn leg 0 bse bn eronensly oF egal srs or vlad, a of any poaty caine? to have Ie calico without mr oof ey sm aig fice boon exessiely or ia ouy nor rong ole, ti iio efit crete ec day fil th the Conant bt Sich suit of pacing nny be mina, wht or tsi ex, enay oF ‘Ss oon pd wider protest a dures any ce ho such sail oF proceing sll te fled ater te pinto of ea (2 yore fom the doe of pore of he tx o penalty rogers of ey superoeing couse at my arse ater payment Provide, Here, That the Conisionar ry, <2 thou! & cei ther, eid een tw bre on a ice the retnrn fon whi pyoent se wad, sue pment apps nyt re eo roe ti ‘The CTA found dat eespondent ie is Gal used wren om Ape 14, 998. Ths, its ight to faim a selon or credit commenced om that date ppliing Awile 13 ofthe Chil Code which state: Shit 13s Yn he eso fw, ms use ight, 1) shall be erst Jha yous we of tre Ivo nti cas ea ments, of thirty hays, of sty Burs, aad wits fo i sunrise ot ce signatt by rma, Hes‘iol be computed by the amber of ays whitey spectively Mae. In camputing a pro, the fst day sl Be exclude, a the at cluded. ‘The CTA nud thatthe two-year prescriptive petiod under Scetion 229 of the NHR for the filing Of juicial elsims was equivalent to 780 days Because the year 2000 was lex ya respondents petition, which was filet 731 days after respondent filed its nol adjustet notary a ied beyond the reglementary period, Primetown moved for recosideration but if was denied and thereafter Filed ar appeal in the C4 Jn 2003 the CA reversed andl st aside the decision of the CTA ruling that Alcie 13 of the Civil Code did not distinguish between 2 regular year and a leap year Itabserved that = “The rad et 2 yoo as 365 days aps, notion he fd ht 1 partite year aap year” In other worl even ifthe year 2000 wea sp voor the poiods covered by Apsil 15, 1998 to April 14, 1999 and Apri 15, 1999 fo Apel 14, 2000 shou stl be counted as 68 days each oe a ft of 730 days, A staate which fe clear and explicit shall be ithee nctpreed no fonetrue, Pottoners contend that ax fun, being in ‘he nature er an esersption, shouldbe sth construe agin etimants Scion 229 of the NIRC should be steitly applied against responds asm a5 ihas been tonsistontly hold chat the preseriptive period or the ting oF tas refunds anv tox res) begins #0 sun on the day ebeimants le thee setuens. Hence the eli shoul haw insted bee filed on or before April 13, 2000 or within, 730 days reckon from the time respondent filed its final adjusted ren. owe do we property cannot es red pind of timer ‘The High Court held thatthe eonctusion of the CA that exponent lest ite petition foe eeview in the CTA within the two-year prescriptive period provided in Section 229 ofthe NIRC is conect. Is basis however is nt ‘The High Tribunal noted tat Amite 13 of the CGivit Cock provides that whe the law speaks of a yy fs underste tobe equivalent to 365 days. ‘Quoting a previous ease, i ruled that year i squivalent to 365 days reganless of wether isa regular yea or a eap you in 1997, 60 292 or the c Cove of 1987 was enacted, Section 1, Chapler Vill, Book L there provides: "Sc 3 je Poids. "on™ sl he wadestoad fo be to Calendar montis “no of hry dys, was refs to m pac elendar wont 8 whi cose sat be spud econing tothe aumber of days the pot font conta “dsy.” 9 dy of tory four oars pees serie se tf Moreover: the Court abseeved thats catendse month smth nga he clea tho gin othe womb of ys mary conti” 8 te poi of ie ong fo tae ging of ek hea ity pis Bult nedng, the Covresponting numbered day of the wad month 8 lent er of digs 0 Ieroth he rp Bo amd Selig Jeet ay of th math ‘o iustrate, one eslendse month from December 31,2007 wil be from January 1, 200819 Tanuary 31, 2008; one calor month from farory 31, 2008 ell be from February 42008 unit Febuary 29,2008, A law may be repealed expressly (by a ‘aiegorieal declaration thatthe Iw is vie! and abrogated by another) or impliedly (when the provisions of a moro yecem Jaw cannot be reasonably reconciled with the previous “one Section 2%, Hook VIE (Binal Provisions) ofthe Administrative Code of 1887 sates: "See 2. Repeating cluse~ At! lus, sre, orders, rules ond regulation, portions then inositol Code sre ety mpl or mf accent A repealing cause like See, 2 abave snot an ‘express sepeating close Bocuse i¢ ast identify for signate the asta be abolished Thus, the provision above only fmpliedly repealed! ll Laws inconsistent with the ‘Administrative Code of 1957, Inmpied repeals however a na favored An Iipied tepeat must have bow leary and lunmistakabls intone bythe lest, Th es whether the sebequent Ia encompasses ently the subject mater of dhe formes aw ara they «cannot b ogiealy or easonabhly weeonele. Both Aaticto 18 ofthe Civil Code and Sevtion 2, Chapter VIL Book Lo the Actoinstative Cate of 1087 deal with the same subject matier—the ‘computation of legal petods Under the Civil Code, a your is equivalent to 268 days whether i Be a regular year ora leap yea Under the Administative Code of 1987, however, & year is componed of 12 calendar months. Neadless estate under the Adeninitrative Code of 1987, the smumber faves relevant Thee sbvinny hts a mao compatibility in the manner of computing bya periads. under the Chu Code andthe TRdministaive Code of 1987. For this reason, we fold that Section 32, Chapter VIL Hook of the ‘Mministrative Cot of 17, ing he more recent fave, governs the computation of legal poiods. Lex posterior deo pra. Genera! Laws visors Special Lanes Gonaaiaepesiibrs non deegant 2° Sometimes we fd enera ters 20x anor eating 8 statutes treating 3 subject n genera pit of the same subject in porueulrly detailed or specaliznd sn pei Gencais lsu net porigitr a qune ant sp soot cmos. Hoth statutes. ave treconedable, the especial or partic poo sign tothe genera prvisions. Basi she ‘ hat where two statutes are of fue in staiory construction st Cua! dhucetiel application tea parucular case, the on opera dea sciosc wdesigned therefore should prevail a ease of confit between 23 genesl provision ofa special Iw and a particular provision of 2 gerecal lay, the Latter will prevail Its a finely imbedded Principe in statutory construction that «special provision or avy prevails ovee a general one. ‘The enactment of a lator Fpislation which is general lave cannot be constried to have repealed «special law Its a Sette principe of construction that in ease of conflict belive ‘genera aw ana a special law, the later must prevail regadone of the dates of thie enactment This holds tue even ifthe general statute is of a later cnactmint of te legtlatere and broad enous to inchate the eases in the speci lo unless there is manitest intent to repeal or sor the later I ita wllsetted rl in statutory construction that subssjuent geno! ly docs not xepeal a prior special lave om the same subject matter unin leasly appears that the legislstare has intended bythe Later Beneral act to modify vf repeal the easier special lat ‘This sso ‘even if the provisions of the general law are. sufficiently comprehensive 1a include what ws 0 forth in the oputal act Moreover, the speciat act and the general law must stand together one as de lw of the parent subject and the adhe a the awa general application In thisest ose the High Cour held that general laws ase universal in nature, it is the sole bass for it speaks for the common goo uns it is otherwise sate; a spoil lave are Lastane vA 828 SCRA 46 (EE cng Lite, 1AG, 187 SCRA > Rest RA 209 He oe ton yt bo ler, 299 SCRA uw said to have exception and not everyone can adhere to its ‘rotons alo unless thewite afd, ea rain genes hat the special provision ofthe lie must prevail oer the general Dogue vs. Veloso” Vets who was than the srt supervisor of Quetanand fra Gt soe Copa rs slmseey cored ih ve cont ot fice somes ath unnathrand shoals of mony. Te spn a nd buily oft dager ond doiied fo he Ture The soponien appald ting he (towing algaingcwourtaees: Cy) The ‘eponnts ens ow es he pomp nson cli, @) he tr Irony (The mapas sats 8 st ne oto Tas, the Cont of Apps cadre sre ft dom nto (0) year soe Sth py the Cel Seee Comin aed eduction of penal: Does Section 53 of Rk Vf the Uso Res ertaeig fo the genera prsision of eppecation of ‘ply to sciministatiow ces? The High Count led tn the nsgptie Get ae en st Fe tests toritpes oth coum goo, ois is oiterce ste ane spi ns ae ao base therpion and. net everyone cao ade 10H tonava unless ors nedffs a rule in gonial thot the spel oven of the le mst peval ove depen The offense made te rejondet ata prc tnt ond ester sol inte Cannot be defo at ting demons Eeilheneey fr = pic ate done form the pees s hee fen eee sy nectar punichinent provided Lawes vis-a-vis Ordinances As proviously stated an orcinance i the loca tegiltive measure paced By the Jneal hgilative body of tlocal government unit, Examples of focal legislative Bodies are the Suvi Ponta aot Songuning Pannigan.Assuch helt povee to lesa sdofegated to them bythe Local Gavernmeat Cade, ‘The test of vabid ordinance is well established. A omg decisions including City of Mile has hel that for an fonfnance to be vali it mast not only be within the corporate pposets ofthe Taal goverment unit to ent and pass aconing to the prosecute prescribed by Za, mist also contort tthe folowing substantive requirements: 1} must nat contravene the Constitution or ay oat (3) must no be piso dscns (Om at po buat may regulate toe) el be general ad eons th tube pty al tt be resonate ©” A cena tee for wo alone hn tt contre inane tar nts nl ott eae RASH (19 Wis basic tht in esse of ent banwcen an administrative fonéer andthe provisions of the Consintions, the later prevails! ie is. an elementary principle in. statutory onstruction that statute is euperior to an administrative tiective and the foraer cannot be repeated or amended by the Tatler. A law im the grand scheme of things, 1 considered Ihigher than an onfinanes thus the later cannot repeat nor amend the former Aw administrative le of regulation cannot tontravae the lw on which itis based In cas of conflict betscen statute au an adiiseative nies the fern use preva" If thee fecal an ordinance ni a satut, the ordinance must give way observing the well Settled rule that a substantive fae cannat be amended by 3 procedural aw, In ease uf discrepancy Between the basic lr Sida re or regulation sued to Implement soi lav, the basic law prevails Because said role or regulation cannat go beyond the terme and provisions af the basic le Rates of Intesprettion and Constraction Interpretation, itt the egal serie, refers to boss a Lae of mote importantly provision there fs to be propery apple. Ths, we twter to principles and concepts under salutory construction. ta akl us in the. proper’ lespretation and sa basic ul, ithe fnguage of the law see, then there is nw need fr ether interpeetation nor construction: This whit ae 88 For ortace cnet mena IR, B02 SCRA NE OH ching Berna Comoran ve. CA. 265 SORA (MEF HAL 8. os, ESSA Sires)‘we normally refer to as nerbe si the wo of the law. ‘eles to the plain meaning of the Iv, This sply means that the law is couched in simple and understandable language thats ‘orm person would understand. 1, on the other fund, the Taw admits of two oF more inverpetation, then we néed to fist infrpret the la It interpretation isnot enough, thi the time when we attempt 0 construe dhe moaning othe law There Ia marked dference butecen interpretation and ‘onstrasion, The former simply sles on the contents the iw While the fatier relies on material that is estané fram the law its. We refer to materials ulzed in interpretation as ntinse ‘ids oie that of construction as extn aids Nol that before ne car construe, one mist fist interpre 1 is only whem interpretation falls shor! of your goal of ascertaining the meaning of the tafute where you may none engage ia construing the same Tw elaborate, interpretation rors to the deawing of he tee nature, meaning and intent of the law teugh an "vaivination ofits provisions while cansltion is he process of Using tools aids seferences stint fromthe law ti onder to ascetaia its natu, meaning a intent. Simply put, n iagerpreting 9a, one does not go nuts ‘ofthe context ofthe statute, white in coasruction, une ha go ‘lsc of the Janguoge ofthe statu and west eatnei ade Although @ we distinction Beeceen the fo, fowiga Jurisdictions have doomed this vague distinction as of ile ora racial valu - eating these wo terns an ayia. In asense nteptstation ints the person to wht the ie itself provides through an examination of Hs language, words phrases and sile, Construction, an the other hand, allows the person to utilize eho reference materials or tools in onder to ascertain the tne meaning ofthe aw Its importante note that canstition| tay any he allied H the process of inkepretation fale oF Jnaoquate to thresh out the searing of he ve 1 is important to note, howseves, that before one ca proceed to consinae the provisions of a Satta, one must fist Inverpret the sine 135 oly when the process of interpretation fale of is found to be inadequate when ane can proceed (0 Initiate the process of construing the I {As held by the Supreme Court in an eater case - ta etna prin of anny constriction that here the words and les of ttt are no abs o aneiguans, is mawing and he Fatention of the lsat must be determine fiom the dave tmploye rd hr hen wo goehguty be He sods, Here 8 a> om fo cnasvaction “To pera «15 important to remember thatthe Be cloar ant unequivocal thee #9 need for interpretation, much more for construction, Te is only when the Law admits of two or tore interpretations of when by it vn mute i sage, when the need for either interpretation or construction arises I the Bae ese ard unequvueat, the eet has no other alkenanive Bat 9 apply the aw tetra rom intesprcting i [Constnctioe an interpretation of awe comes only afer bras been deternined thats application i smpossible or inadequate thout ther, 18Morvover, words shouldbe read an! considered in thet satural ordinary, commonly accepted ani most vious Sigifcation, according good and approved usage without eding tofowedorsubiecensincten Semper in dais tunignion paciende For words ane Presumed to have been employed by the lawmoker in thle lontbinary and commun tee and acceptation fo statutory construction ifthe words of solute ae lea, plain and fre fom ambiguity whatever is writen unner the lane wl be given ls fteral_meaning slthout an ster for Inwerpretatin as cam bese fom He case bela Vicenco 2s, vita On October 30, 2003, the Saugus Pash of Melabon presided over by Calura, wlio was then the acting mayon adopted and approved. City) Ontinanee No. 152000" gracing suthority wv the City Vice-Mayor to engage in a Contract for Consultancy Sevvices forthe Songun Few months Jator the City of Malabon represented by Hen. Galoran ener into separate ‘ontracts for Consultancy Sevier ith consultants Subsequentis, the pettiones, Viencio wos elected Vice-Mavi of i lecame the Presid onan by vitae oF tise ols Otticer ofthe Sniginion ane at he same time the head of the Smguaion Sccrstaia (On February 205, the petitioner representing the City Government of Malabon entered contact for the Consultancy Serices with consultants who will rendered thee service othe Songun Upon disbursing the Funds of the projet memorandum was ised distlowing, the amount for boing an improper dksbursemeat ~ providing, thas the petitioner hte no authority on the said toedinance for i Was supposed to be during, the former Vice. Mayor Yambao's incursbency” and frcoaling to them fro the passions of Artie I ‘FRA 7610 of the Lacat Government Cod, which Slalee the duty of @ wee mayoz, i cannot be Construed that foriner ‘vie mayor 36 foe the phrase "outing sutrty” cannot presumed as IMG contacts made dung the former term be Continued uss etherise provided by law and tuner the provision of this code, there is no inherent authority om the par of the vicemayor to enter inte coninics in behalf of the: local ovesnment unit unlike 95 provided forthe city Iayor and tis tilly prokitited by fa. Con Article 1 of RA 7810 oF the Sova Gocerument Code, psraining 0 the duty of @ payor be eanatil tfc he petines act of oo th ion nk rac aig is? “he High Court sue in the negative stabing ‘hat in satutary cometeuction, if the words of t plain ane! fee foes amb Tehatever fs write under the aw wil Be gi feral meaning wihoat an atampt foeUnless the law i6 impossible, absurd. of ‘enkst itl be given its tral meaning. The Loa Goverment Code peril 1 tho duty of vce aor cay ete ht“ nce jr al pci Oe of the agua, Ponstel nd gual ers ae oe oie rid fre Ireasiry fora experts ap operation of be suxgoming qagtonca Thus the Ine is dleay there i no provision Stating a "cotinous authority” of sonteacts as from the former vce mayoe ‘who then conducted hearings, received extnsive ‘evidences, oral and documentary. From the notes taken by Att. Aspillera, the Commission hoe onder the Decision allowing Canora be subd» cetifeate of public convenience to opersto 2 10tn Ace plant an the City of Lipa ‘overuling the oppositions Sites and Opulensia aad Ua Ws degen made by the Commis o At Aspen deg! wed contrary leis contrary to lave under the provisions of Section 3 of the Public Service Actas amended by Republic Act No, 17, he reception of evidence in a contested case maybe delegated only to one af the thot H the lay is clear and sinequivocsl there is no need or interpretation much sore for construction, the following ease luidates this pont. Sitoa 0s. Cuber June 1, 19, respondent Belen Cabrera appli! for Institution af 18 ton le plan i the City of Lipa covering ee supply. for severed municipalities of Batangas Petitioner Elsao Svs and Oputencin and Lat holders of covtiiates of Public Convenience te fperate each a ISton Ie plan opposed the pplication to the ground that their service’ frie forthe needs a the put July 14, 1942 Commisioner Ocampo, by ftder, commissioned At Aspilly chet of the Lega Division “tate the fostinony a ie Hines Sem my cana 98H) | | | | | | Commissioners and to no one ele, i being landers that such reception of evidence consists in conducting hearings soceiving evidence orah.and sJocumentary, pissing upon the twlevancy and ‘competency ofthe same, rang upon pettions and fbystions that come up in course of the hearings fn receiving ana ejecting evidence In accordance fei said valings the lw i dear and nega! there is no ac for interpretaion much more for costrection The pmceedings and the decision theta, were dscland rll an vol and the ease sas oman to the Pubic Service Commission, The next ease ch Unambiguous nis face nose na he intone ‘lusteats the wll known re of stanutory construction tthe ellct that 9 statute clear and‘Tho rule that only statutes with an ambiguous of loubtful meaning may be te subjects of statutory constuction. Daag vs Munisipat ule of San Nicolas “This cases involves petition for review on rtieari of the decision rendered by "the spondent judge. On March 23, 1971, respondent spouses. Antico and Amanda Agonoy filed pettion With the Municipal Court of San Nienss, Tipcos Norte, seeking the adaption of the minors Quitine Bonils and Wear Marcos ‘On Api 21872, the minocs Roderick an Rommel Dasing,ssestel by et tthe a auarin a8 Stom, Se petoners hewn, led an position tothe petion for adoption, cain shat the poses eo nt Amane gnyha's teghinate daughter sumed Tatts Agony ppontor ther whoa on March 3.1 ae throm stapes were squad to gt under Art. 335 of the Civ] Code, ‘ This anfcle proves that those who have lgiimate, “Jegitimsted, acknowledged natural chillen or eileen by legal ton canna adopt Ane spare Aner Ag heap use pg ut Ama Raines ns The wonts used in paragraph (1) of Adie 2315 of the Civil Cae, in emvmerating the persons eho cannot adopt, are clear snd una wher the New C changed the sword “descendant,” found! in the Spanish Ci Code to which the Neve Civil Code was patirned, 10 "ales" “The children thus mentioned have a eeariy Aefinad tasaning in Taw and donot inclule frandchildren, Well knowsn i the rule of satutory SSmsirution tthe effet that 2 statute car and Imambiguous on is face need not be Intrpeced “The rue thst only statutes with an ambiguous oF Aloubifal meaning may be the subjects of statutory In the present case, Roderick and Rommel Daoang, the grandchildren of Antero Agonoy and Amanda Ramos-Agonoy, cannot assail the acoption fof Quirino Bonilla and Wikon Marcos bythe !Aganoys. The Supreme Court denied vhe petition, and affnmed the padginent of the Maniipal Court UF Son Niclas, locos Norte Th shook alba be underscored. “that the fst and fundamental dty of cots so apply the Lv. Com oan interpretation come only afier Wt has eon demonstrated that ‘pplication spose ot fnadequate wathout ther. This the pont dave home by the eouet in the case belo: Nations Federation oflator os. Ema (On 5 Mach 1982, the National Bedeation of Labor filed with the Ministry of Labor ont pein Sor inet coieation 25 the sole evasive callctive bargaining eepresentanve fof the sonthly pic emplotes at the Lurmbayao EmploymentImanufieturing plant “of the Zamboanga “Weed Products Zambowoo), (n17 Apel 1982 sich empliees charged she em blr the see or uderpeyie iy sng swans On 3 May 1982, the union issued a notice uf inst the Bs, atlegingillogalfexmiation president of the sd local union unfit labor practice: nonpayment of living elloances ond employment of oppressive alien management personne) withoat proper permit The strike began on 28 May 1982. On July 1982; Zambowoodt fils comphin withthe vol coud against the officers and members of the union, for “detages for alti of pitate pongo, ith prayer fr piwinarysajoetion mar yestraanng os The union filed a mation for the dsmisst and forthe dissolution ofthe restraining oder sn ‘opposition to the isuace ofthe writ of pel esliminary injunction, contending that the "incl of picketing are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter pursuant to Batas Pambanee labor Cele, Article 217) and not to the Court of First tnstance. The motion was denied. Hen, the pttion foe certiona 1s cmstaction of the le suid deterie furstictisn® The its and fundarentst ety i courts sto apply the lie, Construction and. interpettion Peston sume only after at has been dew rated that application is impossible ot inadequate without them. Iusisdiction over the subject mutter in 2 judicial proceeding is ennferced by the sovereign Suthorty which oxganizes the courts and its given ‘only by law Jurisdiction fs never presumed: 1 must be conferted by lave in words that do not admit of oube Since the pedicton of cours and judicial trans ts derived exclusively from the statutes of the forum, the issue should be resolved on the tsi the la or statute in fore Therefore, since (1) the orignal wording of Awice 217 vested the labor arbiters with juvisticion; since (2) Presidential Deere 161 reverted the jurisdiction with respect to money sims of workers oF elms for damages ating fom employceemplovee relations tothe Inbor abit after Prosidential Decree 1367 transferred such jurisdiction to the onlinary courts, and since (3) Batas Pambansa 130 made no change Suh respect fo the “opiginal and exclusive jurist of Sabor Aries with respect to money Claims of workers or climes for damages assing from employereinplasee ations; Arte 217 840 be applied the way it 6 worded. The exohsive fviginal jurisdiction of a Labor arbor ts therein provided for expe Aste from ave: the ruts ay’ also appt contacts In this mene ease the High Cow hokt that contact provision = mbiguots if iC susceptible of so reasonable alternative interpretations. Where the exten torme of He contract ate not amigas and can only be rox one way, She court willimterpret the contact a8 2 matler of lw. Hf the conkact is determined (© be ambiguous, then the interpecation of the emai el to the court, to resolve the ambit inthe ght ofthe intrinsic evidence, Abu vs. Goldloop Properties Fottoners Abad, owners of 18 pants of {idea agricultural land entered into # Deed of Conditional Sale with Gotloop based on ceraln terms such a the payment of eatnest money of Php 1 milion, a frst payment én the amount of Phe {765.6600 and a final payment ofthe balance ‘he amount of Php 27,0884 00, Jn the event a flue by Goldioop to make ood iis payments, Paragraph 8 of the Dood, hhowever provided the foretare of the earner money but allowed the rtutof the Bist payne Du to economic downtums Goltoop was ‘Prevented foam securing end! ban nanos "informed the Petiioners that ft woul ne longer push through with the ile anal rated or the refund of ay fst payment hic the late refused arguing thatthe seme was aleady tore In their favor along with thee Pottioners argue that mspondent (ited to satisfy the thee suspensive contins” under the sisputed provision, Thus. they ave nol dBbged ty Imturm the fest payimint and. mspordient relative right wo demand the performace ef th ‘ligation never arose. Sema 007) ‘The High Court observ hat Pasageaph 8 of {he Deed is lear and srambigaou ste i nd appt cots al the ip lon sae omy wc eld Be Ht Ineo eon Ih oe respondents fe 4 deter the nce of the toe consifratin, the fst payment we he tered teapot The cardinal rule sp the interpretation of contracts fs embadied in the fest paragraph of ‘Amite 1370 of the Civil Code: “if te terms of coitt ar lata ee ed po Me esto of the cauiracting pie, te Wot meaning, of stipules cont” tks provision fakin w he pa meoig ize Spiele ct ins eae ‘erabeatied ta the writing iself. and when: fet tl fom Be ss daiuege of 1 also msembles the “corms” cule, 3 srl hid lon at Home ces Search beneath the semantic sesce for eles to resina Rts pos caning x cet to inesptet the inert wf the contracting partien as objectively anifested by them. ‘Theprocesofitepaings cond gues the cout to makes prtiniary Ing eta ther the intact fiom it ambigsus Contac provision x stbiguns ifs coeythe of two reasonable alternative interpretations, * Where the written terms ofthe contact ane not ambiguous and can ony be read one way the ovat al nterpre the contrac asa matter ofa the contact defermined to be ambiguous, then the tnerpretation of he contract et to he cour, to esclve de ambiguity in the ight ofthe trinsic evidence, The igh Court then mitersted an oll suling*sheae it stated that = “The rae Bit when the vnguoge of canto spin aud wou, Imemingsinald be determined teow? foes to vn fs ons The iden of epics mnt shed from tad bregng, ond feo te lagu lone Stet diferent wher he gage waren fontrot& ue Gourds canaot mke fir paras Beer or roe epithe agmenous ito they themsctes ene ae sol Jo. make, er sity cones enue they fash a ety a 9 oof ie pts on fin the tenet Atronet ofthe other, by construction, elie xe of ‘the partes fom the terme lich he contol canst oor impose chi se which he di not.” ales of Jacgment ‘As the constitution vests judicial power in one Supreme (Court and it suc lower cous as may Be establshed by la iudicial powes, by its nature, s the poswee to hear and decide Cases pending betieon partes who have the Fight to sue ad ‘pe sue inthe courts of ane ant ease Although holding nother peese nor sword and so reganled a the weakest of the thie departments of the goverment, the jciciary is nonetheless vested with the power to annul the acts of either the lgisttive or the executive oof bth when nok conformable ta the fndamseta ow Hence, the only’ entity empowered by the Constitution to inerpret and -constnue laws) is the judicial branch of {government Thus, we often encounter the adage that judi power is ted none Saproe Can aud st cart vais y ao Supreme Court ara all ther Yosser cours have the power to constric sn interpret the las This is the reason for what some quarters call i the doctrine of judicial supremacy. Even so, this power not ght ssumedt of rally eercised, The doctnine of separation powers imposes upon the courts a proper restraint, born ofthe haar of their functions and of ther eespect for the othersfepartments in steiking own the acts ofthe lkgstive and the escautive a unconstitutional Note however that te Cour nay exerci ts Pome of jn review ony te fon quis ne pes CD) an Sensland appmpsite nse ne corienvery esis peer tnd santa erst ofthe purty ang We eatin seston) the exrese of Jud renew pew at the Eero! oppvtaniy and) the contin queen raed thevery Het of theca ™ A jsticiable contsoversy invelves 9 dante and concrete spate touching on the legal elation of the partes having adverse legal interest" As for the third requisite for judicial review, it should not be taken to mean thet the question of «onstitotinaity must bo raised imaesitely afer the execution fof the state action complains af — that the question of consttutionality has not heen raised before aot a valid reason for refusing to allow itt be rte lle. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any ease submited to fr decision cu date orn division shal be eaced in consultation before the case i assigned to-a Member for the ‘iting ofthe opinion ofthe Cox A cetifction to this efeet signed by the Chief Jase shall be Bowed anda copy thereat sstached tothe reeoed ofthe case and served upon the parties, Any Member who tok no pat, or dissented, or abstained frnch 2 decision or resohtion must state the reason and the same requimments shall heabserved 9y al ower cllegate cer Tad aya 8 ie Eran erm GR, to Finally, no dovsion shall be rendered by any cout without expressing therein clearly and dstinelly the facts and the lave on Iwhlch sis based nor shall petition for review or motion for reconcderaton of a decision of the court shall be refused! de ftntse or deed thot stating its lp bass ‘A jostiiable controversy wolves a definite and concrete dispute touching on the leg tlations of the pocis: having adverse logan. As forthe thi requisite for jucica revit shoul not be taken fo mean tha the question of eonstitatsonaity must be raised immediately after the excoution of the state action omnptaind of = thot the question of cunsbktionaty has not been rise before is not lil reason foe reusing to allow to be raised latoe!® The proper forum, therefore, for interpretation and ‘construction of a Haw to take place is within the halls ofthe judiciary, No judge or cout shal cecine ender judgment by eason ofthe slence, obscurity’ oe sasuiclency of hel. Stated aiferently, iris the duty of the judiciary to sete cual contarversies “involving. sights which ase legally emandable and enforceable, an to determine shether or rot ‘hor has een» grave asa of discretion amounting to lack or cveess of junedicion onthe pat of any branch or instcumentaity ofthe government In the course of ou nation’s pica and legal hislany. our Supreme Coutt had the eccision to promulgate decisions thatprovided for gullies on how cours - be it jail ical oF quasi dial -formaaat and arrive a ts jadgnent. “This is therefore good tne to revs the landmark ease of Ang Thay CIS wherein the Suprime Court had the ‘occasion fo ay down the carnal requirements of due proess in salmiistrative proceedings hse canta) urements Ae wo call them, ate 36 follows: ‘ : ° 2}thete must be aight ta bearing, which includes the ight to present one’s ease and submit evidence in stpport thea Djthe tribunal must conser the evidence presented the decision must have same basis to support ise the evidence mast be subst ‘othe decision mast be base on the evidence presented at the eating. or atleast contained in he record snd disclosed to the parties affected. ithe wibunot or hody ar any of ts fu ‘oust act ons oviniiependent fonsideraion af the tae ane the facts of the controversy, and not smply accept the views ofa subersnate and . e¢asey | | | | | i | | | | ithe board or body should, inal controversial guests, render is decision fi such a manner a would allow the ures to know the various sees inwolved Sn the reson forthe decision rendered, Note that there have he instances wherein the High Cart thas cautioned agains evisreration = st decane that thee rod of confining friar langage of atte Jos real signin. White statuary conerustn inte ho exercise of ebie the Serta to soon ot wl anc rely oon’ reactions ast ht policy should pool i to veied. The arch must be fr a ers interpretation, 1 Bs a hep to mind the reine fom Holmes that “there is no eangy aguinst nsing commen sense dn construing ins a= saying aha they obeosly means." To paraplvase Fron, intepalton must be eschecad but fests now Certainty the ast effort haul be exert lest fhe iteptatin raed a dss eno foe statutory guage in oral vontext This the fous of the nest eae: Republic Hour Mtsts 18, Commisioncr of Customs & CTA Potiioner, isa domestic corporation, primarily engaged in the nuamsfacure of wheat Fi ae produces polar arab) al bran Gy the process of milling, During 2 certain period in ‘question, petitioner exported pollard and or bran ‘hich tors loaded fons lighters alongside vessel, engage! in foreign tae while anchored near the break oat,The Commissioner of Customs assessed the petitioner by way of wharfage dies on the said feportations which assessment. was paid by peitioner under protest. The only issue is whuther ‘or not such election of swhasfage dues was in aceondance with la “The iain contention of petioner was “thal fusamnel os no goereont or pote wares or socornment faites wire ated in exjrting the Pen ni tin of rf es (On the othor hand, the sand af respondent Commissioner of Customs was that pattoner was Table for whatage duce “upon win or dscns of te exported goods By a aes ong eg trade rnd te nrc gown pt ‘hares. ~ ’ Respondent Court of Tax Appeals sstined the action taken by the Comaissioner of Customs tuder the appropriate provision of the Till and Customs Code, reins an the decision ak down in Procter Game. Carson af Casts roseRaaes fae “The sole eror assigned by petiiones that it should not. under is canetracion of the Ack Be liable for whartge dues on it exportation of bran tnd pollacl as. they are not. “prodicts of the Phiippins", coming as they di fom wheat grain Tuhigh were imported fom abread, and being “rns pots of heat grab milat by Beto proce fn ech nd Boome rs" In sustaining the decision vf the Court of “Appeals, the High Coot found such contention mperuasive and fund the language of the provision under reviw tbe quite explicit = “Tre Ell eed, clle ane oid al ries inpare fv beongh tthe Pipes, endo pdt ofthe Phiyones exported fan he Plies, «cise of fan pss per gi cre tm 4 fe for fae” ‘One category totes to aha fs Smporied. The ther mentions produc of the Pslippines shat ane exported ‘Even without unde sertiny, it docs appear quite covious hit 36 long as the gonds ate Protein the courte, Dy fal wath the terms fof the above section. Moreover, the Couet noted that petitioner appeored to have ealertined suc 2 tia fs prtton for review before respondent Court, i Entepomcally asses Postiner primary enol si ake manip of fo fom mea gran Te the reves of ing Abe ot gai ito fur. petition Tra pveces faa! and pln” eich ports boat” Ie dues take # evi amount of airspliting to excl from ts operation what pettioner calls“anste" resuing. ftom the production of flour process fem the what grain fn petitioner’ flour alls inthe Philippines, is always tmely to remember that, a8 stressed by Jastice Movslands "Tie frst nt “daca duty of cots, our judgment, 80 eppy {ef Constcton ait itrpetaton ee ony fer "thts te demons pct pose or Iraequat wish then,” Potitionce ought to have been aware that Aeference to such doctrine prea an affirmative response to its contention. The lav i ele t must te ohoyed. Is as simples that nthe encase he High Cat snd 9 ominde that sir om at ont hein 6 dea amt ay th ert inept oan us me by ‘Santon of wit oo nme nna of eg anett ‘emetogenic tne A sbiate sambigas ft admit wore pale ‘ema which ete Con ale oo ute Indl actos ic ie one an rn corgi true rene vs. e Te case stem com the foreclosure ofthe ostaage of certs titles belonging to BF Blanes in favar of RCBC, which, despite an action by the former for rehabilitation Bled with the SEC, was tworsfored by the Register of Dceds to the letter 1h Supreme Court, Roweves fei the foonster bolding that’ = aeiene « dishessad 0 968A 79999) corprtion ably the SEC. for. refubiititon ant Suspension of payments, prfrad ceive may ne longer assert suck prefer, Dut.» ond. eal footing soy aur cedar. Foxsclasure shall be tisowed seas not to prejudice ater creditors, oF couse dveriminaton athong them. 1 frecosuee Ib tindestaken despite the fact that a_ petition for ‘habitation hae boen filed, the cetfcate of sale Shall not be “delivered pending rehsblitatin, Likewise, if this hae also been done, no transter of fitie shalt be affected sso, within the purlad of ‘ehabiltation ‘The rationale behind PO SC2-A, as amonded, isto elect feasible and vile rehabsitation. This fanaa be achieved one creditor Is proferred over thecshers In this connection, the prohibition against foreclosure attades as so0n as 4 pebton for habitation is fle, Were i others, what isto event the petitioner fom delaying the ceanion of 2 Management Commitee ans in the mesntine Assit all its asset. The sooner the SEC takes fver and imposes 2 feeze on all He asets the beter forall concerned J its Movie for Recmsidnntion befire the Count, RCHC sid ot the straining one end the ort of protinanary Ensen teu by the SEC npining the forectosuee sls of he propertics of spoon’ eve inal lng) or in sees af siti case ne live af he lea oso. fe oe en ae therefore nul ad oi ad tat eg 1 oorigige eon © eit 4 vey sally a Hs Security and to refein foot jug. the wmsernat ‘itr te SEC CeJn sustaining the Motion, the High Court then held tht = Theis of whether or mot prefered ret of istresedconoations stad oe fog taf ote aeoes sane relaner ad meaty nyo he appoint of @ mangement cman rohabitaow rei, taand, or bey satan ae Patitionor fs concerned, th provisions of the as! are not yet applicable ant may ll be allowed to sscert is preter status because it foreclosed on the mortgage prot to. the appoiminent of the management corte, The Court therefor, grants the motion for reconsideration on this sere. Ts thus adequately ‘tear that suspension of lms against corporation under rehabitation is counted ot gered up ony upon the appoinirnent ofa management camuitee ca rehabilitation weciver Mose importantly the High Court observed, that the helding that suspension of actos for nis against a comporation ender —rwhabiitstion takes effect as soon asthe application ot pi {or rhailtation i filth the SEC may, sane, bbe more logical and wise at uinfontnatly, sh is nt withthe clea language of the Ie To insist om sch ting, no matter howe jal anc noble, would be to encroach upon, fine the wisdom ef the ial eiclaion, In ascertaining the intent of the Inwmakers, the next nse ucinctlycives home the pot thet = he ent He Legisteae to be ascertain endef 2h tent expssed in the mors of the saute. eft ced a en top te mee, cours canst by intrpetation in some appa : Spocidte tam intent om spy mecng no found the Frases fh ei rs th sons mel sume ie Pompose at my aay exposed ad construe the sti f0 cops as suposed tention, ARegntado zs. Yio! “This involved an action for quo savant to tctermine the respuctive rights of the petitioner egalado trom that of bis replacement, Vilar, 38 “connection 10 the office of justice of the peace of alinao, Albay she issue inthe case whether or not under the provisions of section 205 ofthe Administrative Cine a amended by Aet No. 3899, the jstices of iy juices of the peace fhe poe and oh ‘perc pir tteapprovat who wacked be age wPoyie yers shall cease Yo hod fle upon reaching te age sty ve yeas egalnds fist quai! anal assum the fc of justice of the pence of Matnao. bay. ior forthe etectiity of the Inve in question. When a bacamne sisy ive years OF age, OWELET Regs hose ra upon instrctions Eom the Secretary of Ystee. ita ees appointed as his replacement ‘The teat of he provision in question wads Spon th in ohich ths ct was enacted as fll:“ART. 203, Nombramiente y dsibucin és juces de pz-~ EI Cabemadr Great roma con econ y consent 4) Senate de Fipngs, a jes de psy ty fs de erp Cina de agua y pra onde unc, toes nto mp is las Finn 8 fF intents pablice set eigen. pro alge or cision pata te menos Importancin yterntorio we orgoniznts siohas Ise: Entei, Que os ccs se pas y juces de pes ines senda rnowinedss pane sec hasin “comple seul y cin fos de ei Entendizedos, od, Qn tos ehues sees dep nese pe eins ge ‘at Sem de oven de este Ley hag uplia sesentn cinco ios deal, cesnin eb primero do. enera ae ot neces Sc y Bese 8 ag 1 Gatsrnaor Gera, san eb conse y onsets del Sono fe Fis, Fant soe rats pan ebay fas coors que berate de Suvi por insterode st te.” ‘The English wersion of the sme section, as amides eacls a floes “SE, 208, appoininent ant distrib af sts of te yee Die sts te ste wie aly tc ftps all he apyninted bythe Gomernor General withthe aise and consent of Philippine Sete. fr the City of Bags ft fr ech m ipa, oes med onicsol astct te the Bip Tiands, and ite public fest ha pie, for ony obker-minar pita! dln or amogenied triton said Monies Prove, That juts ond soy jis of the peace shall be print to ere wnt ty haze nce fie age of sixtyfioe years: Provide, furthor, That the present justices and ry jasc of he owe who sa, ab. The te thie Act les eft, te complet sityfioe yore af age, tall batonasicliy cee told ffce on Ian fs, ito hundred a y= Yoana the Govense-Gonra, ie the aioe and conser af the Philippine Senate sul wake ose apices er the sans acuring by oerati ‘this Act” Petionor Regalado insists chat the lw 1s dear and acordingl’ aeeds no inception, The meaning ofthe law according to him Is that onfy dose justices of the peace and ausiliaey justices ofthe peace ceased to fle office who had Compt sintytve years of age on before the tao fokefet On the atker hand, the SatictorGener sate thatthe provisions of the second. prise ‘died! to the lve ste net Very spi, but that “emeaing to the tea ilention of the law the ony ensbie andl paoper constuction that cou be place om the pro in question & that wade is provisions all yusces of the peace and auilary Justices ofthe peace, whether appointed prior tothe 7"approval ofthe aw or subsequent theteto, who had ‘completed the age of sntysve years of ae a the time of its approval and those who sholl complete ‘hat age theestey shal cease to old fice, Fist things fat, everyone agree! that the ige whic should provail inthe intexpetation stud be Spanish, but the English text may be ‘consulted to explain she Spanish, The English text however, 6 deficient in that ie includes the sond “rutin the equivalent ‘of which does not appear inthe Spanish Also, in the Administrative Code containing 23 compilation of section 208, as amended, the son ace” was ematted after the word "sé" Finally, the Spanish wses the term “al tmp de a genciade sts dey’ trata into English as “a the te ths Ach ‘ok fc. Dat the Solicitor General sits that the equivalent ofthe terry “a” ist” and that “et” can be construed as equivatent to daring Moreover, the Solictor-Gensral submited that an examination ofthe history ofthe Jy would edu it legislative inert ~ originally judges of fist instance and jostiees of be peace hal no age Tints om their tenures of office ut eventually the Ptippine Legisatone provided tat they shal! serve uit they have reached the 3g0 of sixty-five yen. Wurther proves thatthe posent fudge of {Courts of Fie instance vacate ther positions upon the etectivit of the line ond the Governor Conceal feith the advice and consent of the Phitippine Commision, shall make new appointments of judges ofthe Courtsof Fest Instance Subsequently the Administrative Code, was amenity aiding a ho end thew tho follwing provi: “Provill, That jasties and anor sees UY the poe shal Be appt fo serze wnt they hace ove he ge of sti wes” Was ht hat the low shoud be given prospoctiveffect only and was rot apphiate to justices and ausiiary justin of the peace appointed bofore i went ino elect. “hereafter the matter again coe Seon the Prilippine Legsltuee and apparently it was in the mind! ef tain mensber ofthe Lexisatune to make 1h lve fixing the ae Lit fr justices of the peace Aas the bl as inteduced in the Senate, eat proving: “Entnende ‘ue te setts cs ep ues de peas ge 0 tempo de nega dete Ley bay ut ssa vimana dec, csren sumac e545 fang, y Gabor Gene eon coe cenit Som Fla Mentrms pre cbr os ces que hak de cur pr minsisde et ey» appar wo ae Tea hs panpose both because ofthe Fang ge et tnd beauce of wnt can be gleaned fom the tutes onthe bil whe 8 ule eonsdertion ihe ut sehen the sll let the Philippine Leajsatine 1 was in a dierent for, forthe wore interac Beem ited ana instead there as tobe found the weeds “lyric de cde secon tin 9 25°‘The Solicitor General finaly points out that the Secretary of Justice had consistently interpreted the proviso in question as meaning = tat ll tices of he pce a ex ses ofthe pence no meter then appointed an nd compete the age of sib ie yous prior othe appro ofthe fw a he who sal! tomplete thet age theese, shall coset Dal ofice po Phe aang Sd ge This ofcourse a cantina) re that the practical ‘constuction ofa statute by the depaetment whove ly itis to carey Ho exceutis is entitle 1a sgeat weit Neverthelss the cours at bound by such construction and the rile does nat app in cases ‘whore the constraction isnot def In deciding the case, the Supreme Court fbserved that ~ te fundominta pump enating 5899, arg, wos core te pmseligy if the fist pon a section 203 of tae divest bse hea hy eh N93 af Mhe peace an ansitory fot of the pee 09h ive pps We tine yay hl sms of te a oho Beat. Bite cic nah ak su when rt soi do {hewn per Delving a tittle more deply into the meaning ofthe law as applied othe caso atthe ime the law {ook effect Regalido was one ofthe "acu juces dep" Giving the term "a tempo del vigencia de li ey” dhe onsinany awaning of "et the te tis Act fates oft", on shat date the petitioner was not ststy-fve yoars of 2g Proceeding farther the phrase "hay compte ssontay cnc ats de ead", appeaing i English as “ae epee ssyfce ys afuge™, sof the past tense and cul not regularly be taken 10 contemplate dv future Finally the phase “et primer deem de wl aon vinta tren Engi “on Janey first ete dr and births aso a date in the pst for on that date the petitioner had not yet feachad the age of sity. fe this case, it ionportant to note. the Aeclacation of the Court when i said ~ Before me tl, us gait vtarn to the cansteaion ofthe Tienda soe Hf awd te pve under ony gic interpret, 0 ge he ie he ion wih the seit ba as 1 continued - Supping we give to the phrase “a fienqe de de nigenchy ae ley" the Inusiat meaning of Tein the ine tis Act is tfctce, but having done s0, we then reach the Tote thatthe pettcner siti the te this Act liective must hive completed sixrve years of gad cease to ble fice on January 1,195. 1‘The petitioner having become sixty-five years ‘af age en September 18,1984, could not be included lundera law iki teguivd justrs ofthe peace 6 yeas of age Ho cease to hold office on Jansary 1, i, Ths forthe abe reasons given, the High Gout arived atthe opinion thatthe natural and reasonable meaning of the language used Weft ao room for any other deduction than tat a justice of the peace appointed prio tothe appeoval ofthe la sind) who completed sxeyfice. years of age Sbsequent toils approval is not alfected by the sit ne As can be gleaned rom the Suprente Courts disquisition so atomalization dhe next caso the hae the wespondent Court unduty stetched and broadened the meaning of “oesone lands," beyond the intendiment of the ia; and against the recognize leg ranetation of “firsts ad Republics. Con of Appeals" This case involved the attempt By the Poesy Cay Coane to rele cera sbmenged ass sothin 8s tervtory relying an these owen definition ‘oF freshone lands ner a aw This telamation projec was paved by the Government stating that Pasay City had foreshore lands t speak of and thatthe law and inher adiinitrative issuances they abi on et applicable 18 SERA 8 888) ‘The Court of Appeils, however, pled the position ofthe City of Pasay to which the issue Was, thereafter elevated tothe High Cour. Was the Court of Appeals comet tn censtring the plonse"oreshare bye" Bo ielade thse sbmge tens ii te evga evar of Pasay Cig? ‘The High Court wot in the negative Well entionched, 0 she point of being clement isthe rule that when the Ia speaks in teat and categorical Ianguae, there is no reason for intesietaion of onstmction, but only for ‘ppliemtion So also, resort to edtisie aids, he the records of the constitutional convention, is tunwartanted, the language of the law being plain tnd unambigvous. Ther, 100, opinions of the Stereary of Justice are unavailing to supplant or rectify any mistake o omission in the Lav. “To peat, the tem “foesore ends" refers to esi § tad that Hes berate bigh ade uater irs ud thet is alteaety wet end dy cong the fl of the fe” and“ sri of en ni By af tr tee sto: he pat ff sorshore bbs the ou-osterfve asaya the Sonny mag of ete trac ant he pe i Sf ene ssh a high de eslly moral by 0 bse sanyo er The duty of the covet & to interpret the enabling Act, RA 1894, fv 50 doing, we cannot‘roaden ts meaning, much less widen the coverage thereat TF the Intention of Congniss were to inclade submenjee! arexs, it should have provided ‘expr, That Congress did not so provi could only signify the exclusion of submerge! areas fern the tr “forsee nt. Rates of Procedure Rules of procedure, be ist the judicial or questa level refers tthe procoss of hose 2 itigant woul! protect his right hough the intervention of the court or ‘ny. administrative body Depending en which fora one goes to woul! determine how the rules oF procaduse ‘sould be intpretes- either liberally orsticly. Note that -actminstratve rules of peocelure aro generally given a liberal construction ‘This se to the fact Chat adiministetive proceiings are fgnerally summary in notere. Sulice it a say that technical fules. of procesns ate iberlly. applied to administeatve agencies exercising quasi judicial functions. The tention fs to resolve disputes bought before such boss in dhe most expediins a inexpensive maninos possible." ln cit procectngs th rales ae eifetent and ever ore so in riminal scons. Note that the ature of fhe seton etornines the Kn of procredings i wil foo Yor, he it an admiaictiative, evil or eriiaal proceeding csi be rose an interpreted first hee natural and ‘As once held by the High Coust-worde should by rsd ant considered i thls natal, ordinary commonly acceded most sivios signet, according fo goad and approved wage and cethout reoring 1 freed or sable construction, For words are presumed olen tox mpeg by the lem hi rary aad omni sea cept” [Note that statute of an administrative rule oftentimes Aefines words and ghaases 35 they are wel within 9 statute 0 rule, Otherwise pit, wehore a statute detines © worst or phrase femployed therein, the word er phrase should “nt, by ‘onstruction, be gives lft meaning ™ Yer separates of where one elevates his. gtivance or fumplaint ll rales of procedure takes ts exe or is bearings $0 to spealy from the Rules of Court Moreover, most rules of proendure in administeative bodies incade the provision that allows the suppletory application ofthe Rules of Cour thie Internal zles are silent on particular proce well, Rules of procedure should be viewed as mee’ tools esignes to facia the atainmento justi. When strong consilerstons of substantive justice ae manifest in the petition, the stct application of the tues of procedure may be relaxed, in the exert of is equity Furisecton.™ "tas rsh Bik Clb Tl Toe 6 SF wasSimply pheased ~ rules of procedure must be faithfully fotfowed inthe absence of persaive reason #9 devia therefic A word of caution, though the Supreme Court has declared that =the erly the applic fries of procure my not be nok of ai es he soto neon ofthe aes o> eae lag sn the edminisation af juste. Inder cranat be i tht eine Ihe requires of prose ae ts oe expo fr ste eo. Indeed, itis not totally uncommon that a government agency i given wide latitude in the scope’and exercise of is Investigative powers, Afterall, in administrative proceedings, technical rules of prose sd ewidemae ae nok tity spp. (Qa gat tur x, satin, do acpi, de rodent engie Sener, Ot Beers Bk. eb 25, se. 3 fll rhe aye of apaiing books, etng them acs ead sesieithy mead, ‘oor bur econe ty ate dso with he Books hich bey onl Tike” Wier Benjani, Unpacking My Library [00TP ABOUT THE AUTHORS $2095 Evaagetiste, F tet toys ic An Ph Dis ona Surmrer cor Woes ae weil people who write Boks no Bee heya uy be do noe wore fellow Iie the King sy amder the Divine Whed abn E Bonlesint i The ides 0 his book seas reir December any when they oid combine Li sf expetiee set fom the auarket. They Fight ~ in the eves of the Iikropiy and ‘st Pulosophy raster epice ts with several ral well 8 fal Board and re preci, he (TPRARY